Evening Post. FRIDAY, DECEMBER 5, 1930. "ON THE RECOMMENDATION OF MR. SCULLIN"

Evening Post, Volume CX, Issue 135, 5 December 1930, Page 8

Evening Post. FRIDAY, DECEMBER 5, 1930. "ON THE RECOMMENDATION OF MR. SCULLIN"

In Sydney the most conspicuous of demagogues in a land which has an exceptionally fine supply has precipitated a constitutional' crisis in his State at the very moment when a statesman in the same position would have endeavoured to concentrate the power of its newly-elected Parliament in a united effort to cope with the grave financial and economic dangers by which the State is threatened. In London, by a most unhappy coincidence, the Prime Minister of that same country, whose resolute altitude to dangers of the same kind had within the last four months won him the admiration and the sympathy of the Empire for his statesmanship, has consummated another constitutional revolution which, though less immediately disturbing, may have ultimate effects of far greater consequence. By the priority which Mr. Lang is giving to legislation for the, abolition of the New South Wales Legislative Council over the measures which are urgently needed to acrest the steady drift of the* State towards insolvency, and by the coarse and stupid threat with which he has sought to intimidate the Governor, he is playing the demagogue's part to perfection. It is by a strange irony of Fortune that Mr. Scullin, just after graduating as an Imperial statesman, is associated in the public mind with this sordid travesty of statesmanship by the success of the attack upon the Imperial character of the GovernorGeneralship to which he inconsiderately committed himself in very different circumstances more than six months ago. It was early in April when we were first informed that the long-cherished desire of the Scullin Government to have an Australian for GovernorGeneral of the Commonwealth had resulted in the recommendation of Sir Isaac Isaacs to the British Government. The inevitable official denials followed, but they convinced nobody, and the severe comments of the Press on both sides of the world were directed just as much at the infringement of the Royal prerogative and the discourtesy of which a bungling amateur diplomacy had unwittingly been guilty as at the broader aspects of policy involved. Mr. Scullin's offer of the position to Sir Isaac Isaacs, v his acceptance, the approval of his name by the Federal Cabinet,, and its submission to the British authorities are facts which are no longer denied. The comments of a special correspondent of the "Morning Post" were as follows:— Mr. Scullin may thereby have committed a breach of courtesy, if not of the Constitution. It is the practice for His Majesty to submit names to the Dominions for their consideration. There may be no reason why an Aus-tralian-born shouW not be the King's representative, but it is for His Majesty to say who it will be. In such an eventuality His Majesty would want full assurances that the appointment would meet with practically unanimous approval. At the same time the Australian comments showed quite clearly that anything like a "practically unanimous approval" was out of the question. A more unmannerly mismanagement than that which first violated the King's prerogative and then exposed so delicate a matter to public controversy could not easily be imagined. But when on the 28th April we were informed from London that Mr. Scullin's nomination of Sir Isaac Isaacs for the Governor-Generalship was not accepted there seemed reason to hope that this snub direct had settled the matter, and that the unpleasant incident might be of permanent value as a lesson in manners for the shirt-sleeve diplomats of the Dominions. But whether from "amour propre," or from the pressure of his caucus, or from the two combined, Mr. Scullin was not content to let the matter rest,' and he has been pushing it during his visit to London as a delegate to the Imperial Conference. The result was revealed on Wednesday in the cabled announcement that "on Mr. Scullin's recommendation" the King had appointed Sir Isaac Isaacs GovernorGeneral of Australia in succession to Lord Stonehaven. Nobody denies that if any Australian was to have the appointment the Chief Justice's brilliant talents and distinguished record at the Bar, on the Bench, and in public life give him claims which it would be hard to beat. But the fact that a considerable part of his public service was as a keen party politician supplies a material set-off, and his promotion from the Bench by the Government to what in this case must be regarded as a political appointment is another objection. The principal objections are, however, of a much more serious character. It is deplorable that, at a time when every friend of the Empire should be cherishing and strengthening the few formal links that remain, one of them should be deliberately and, one might say, almost wantonly snapped without any compensating advantage whatever; and the mischief is seriously aggravated by the completion of it in the same rough-and-ready contempt of convention and decorum with which it was first put in hand. Mr. Scullin has apparently been so eager to get the appointment for his friend that he has had no time to consider the dignity of the King or his advisers in Downing Street, aid

if he did pause to consult those who knoAV how these things should be done lie was 100 busy lo follow their advice. Sir Isaac Isaacs's iiame, says "Tho Times," was apparently submitted to the King without any alternative or formal preliminary conversation, which is most significant to those who caro for the maintenance of the Crown as one of tho remaining vital links of tho Empire. As long as the King had a single set of advisers for the whole Empire they were accustomed to treat him with the deference and courtesy due to his great office. But the oversea advisers who were unfortunately given an equal status by the Balfour Report are apparently determined to cut out the manners and to get straight to business by showing him, or perhaps sending a clerk to show him, what he has to sign. There was no consultation here, "The Times" points out, no choice, no discretion. Everything had been cut and dried by the Commonwealth Cabinet at Canberra1 in April, or possibly by the Labour caucus several months previously, and all that had been reserved for Windsor or London was the signing. Most of us would rather see the Australians insulting their own elective President than treating the King of us all and of the whole Empire in this hateful way. The painfulness of the dilemma in which the King was placed and the reasons for holding that his decision was unimpeachable are vividly described by "The Times":— Tho King was undoubtedly right in confirming tho appointment. The risk of an election fought on difference between .the Crown and tho Commonwealth Government, and enlisting all the forces of Republicanism, Communism, anti-Imperialism, and religious fanaticism is not to be contemplated. A weaker Sovereign might have resisted his Minister's advice, but Mr. Scullin's political embarrassments and manifest inexperience, and tho fact that he offered the place to a friend in all good faith before he left Canberra, made the caso all the stronger for His Majesty's consent, but it must be kept reserved for use if Ministers' advice anywhere in the Empire runs counter to the interests of the people and tho true interests of the country concerned. It is appalling to think of the disaster in which a General Election fought upon that issue, with a few other suqh trifles as repudiation, deflation, the standard of living, and the like thrown in, would' have involved Australia. And jhe chaos would be intensified by the fact that the Red forces which would have been arrayed in support of Mr. Scullin on the constitutional issue —Republicanism, Communism, and anti-Imperialism—are likely to be in open revolt against his financial and economic policy as soon as he returns. The fact seems to be that during the last three or four months Mr. Scullin has developed into a national and Imperial statesman, and that this wretchedly mismanaged business of the Governor-Generalship is really an unescapable legacy from his partisan and anti-Imperial past.