DOMINION STATUS

Evening Star, Issue 18051, 19 August 1922, Page 8

DOMINION STATUS

WASHINGTON ARRANGEMENT APPROVED. AN UNDIVIDED EMPIRE. [From Qua Parliamentary Eepoeteb.] WELLINGTON. August 18. Tha Prime Minister told the House tonight that ho heartily approved oi the method of representation of Now Zealand at the Washington Conference, and that ha Had refused to be a party to any protest against failure to send andiviauai invitations to the dominions. Sir John Salmond, New Zealand’s delegate, had, no Raid, pointed out in his report that the dominions were present at Washington, not in their own right,, but as constituent portions of an undivided Empire. 1 never;liked the arrangements made in > connection with the League of ■Nations, n« continued. "It was said that by signing the Peace Treaty as individual nations we have become independent nations; but this is absolute nonsense, and the wish was m many cases father to the thought. i'lio idea of giving the dominions a separate vote in the League of Nations was that it was believed it would strengthen the Empire by increasing the vote; but supposing that two delegates differed from another two there was nothing to prevent them voting against each other. That would not strengthen the Empire. It was a weakness which ought to be remedied. He was pleased with the Washington arrangement. It was quite well known that certain' ■ dominions were strongly opposed to the Washington method of representation, and lie had nad quite a lot of communications on the subject. His position on the matter would be recognised Iby the reply he had cabled, to a certain Prime Minister of a dominion, who had asked him to emphatically protest 'against the lack of individual invitations: "Ourrepresentative •had sailed before your telegram came to hand; bub while the point you raise is very important from certain points of view, I consider it to bo more important that the Empire should speak with one voice, and in no uncertain sound." In conclusion, Mr Massey said he was glad to be able to say that this was the effect of the method of arrangement of the Empire’s representation at Washington.

A SAY IN THE MANAGEMENT.

Later in his speech Mr Massey, reverting to this interesting constitutional point, described the evolution of the Imperial Conference during the war, declaring it was acknowledged to-day that the dominions' had a right to have a say in the management of Empire affairs. It was a big responsibility; but we would have to rise to at and do our duty. When ho said the public affairs of the Empire, he referred to possibilities in connection with the making of war, the making of treaties, interempdro communication, and anything in which the Empire as a whole was concerned. The last Imperial Conference was really a Cabinet, and was So described by the British Prime Minister. Mr Massey expressed his strong belief that meetings of the Imperial Conference should be held at least once annually, and, if possible, in different parts of the Empire. Mr Forbes: Tire difficulty is that the Prime Ministers cannot get away. Mr Massey agreed that this was an obstacle, but New Zealand had been ably represented at Washington, though when it came to the Imperial Conference there were questions which could only be answered by the Prime Minister. Bub if we were not going to lose the benefit of these conferences, they should be held regularly. He_ believed it would' come to an amplification of the Privy Council with the object of forming an Empire Council, One of the difficulties of the present system was the overlapping of affairs of the United Kingdom in connection with tire business of the Imperial Conference. Only by moans .of a separate Imperial Council could this be avoided, and he believed something could be done by rearranging or modifying the Privy Council so as to do the. work. AEROPLANE AND BATTLESHIP. COMBINED**FORCES. The prophecy was made by Mr Massey, when dealing with the results of the treaty, that-aeroplanes will he required to cooperate very closely with battleships in time of war. He had no doubt that aeroplanes- of the future would be greatly improved on those .used daring the war, when they were dangerous enough. It had been suggested that the aeroplane would take the place of the battleship in a future war, but he was perfectly certain that no squadron of warships, or no single battleship would go to sea without having a number of aeroplanes to act as scouts and to keep off enemy planes if they happened to come along. There was no question that in the wars of the future, if they arose, the battleship and aeroplane would go together. Mr Isitt: What part will aircraft and submarines play in the defence of our coasts? Mr Massey replied that ho would not depend on either bv itself. The submarine would probably improve, but he could not help remembering that towards the end of the war the submarine, was beaten down and oat. It was extraordinary that with all the submarines possessed by Germany they never sank one capital ship. A capital ship was lost by Britain off the coast of Ireland, hut this was due to a mine. When the hydroplane and depth charge came along there was an end to the submarineo, so he believed the air force and' battleship would go together. He moved: “That the House of Representatives of New Zealand in Parliament assembled assents to the ratification by His Majesty of the Washington treaties, as negotiated by the plenipotentiaries at the recent Washington Conference.” . OTHER SPEAKERS. ■ [Pee United Press Association.] WELLINGTON, August 18. Mr Wiliford, in seconding the motion, iaid the Liberal side of the House yielded to no.one when it came to supporting the British Empire. In his opinion the first great result of the Washington Conference was that the perils of Anglo-American antagonism had been averted by frank discussion ; secondly, the different parts o£ the British Empire had responsibilities; thirdly, it revealed a sincere and spon'taneous identity of purpose by the four Great Powers. It had got rid. of the A.nglo-Japaneso Alliance, which was a source of danger; it had produced a paper peace, and it had showed that the first freat test of good faith was disarmament, leafing with submarines,' he pointed out that Germany "at no time had l more than nine or ten submarines operating in the vicinity of England, yet Britain had to keep some 3,000 craft to combat them. He regretted that the conference had not dealt with aircraft, because there would be no doubt a future development of aircraft which would render uncertain the efficiency of the fleets that were dealt with by the Naval Treaty. He personally was satisfied with the status New Zealand had at the conference, though there were curious anomalies in the representation there, Newfoundland, a self-governing dominion, not having a representative, while India, which was not self-governing, had one. We might congratulate ourselves that, as • result-of the conference, for ten years there would be no building of capital ships, and' that there would be .no increase in land forces, because it would bo too costly to do it. He favored New Zealand being represented! at all Imperial and! International Conferences. He looked with faith on the work of the League of Nations, because it was capable of awakening the public conscience in'the case of any nation seeking to break the peace. There was a menace in the world to-day in the threatened entry of Constantinople by Greece, because that would offend millions of Mohammedans, who would _ not suffer violation of their holy places. There 1 was a second menace in the world, and that was poverty.in Germany. She liad .thousonde ftl men trained to war, anfii

lacked only the engines of war. If Germany should, decide on another war she would have Russia with her on her flank; therefore she might become more dangerous than she was, and his opinion wa/that wo must at an early date either trade with-Germany or fight with her, Mr Holland said that at all times the L.ihor"Party favored restrictions on war, and was prepared to support every movement favorable to world peace. Commenting on the findings bir J. Salmond’s report, he regretted the decision with regard to submarines, which, in spite of what the Prime Minister had said, were a distant danger to the world. Ho believed that .Prance would m the future use submarines largely, and, owing to the want of mental balance on the part of her statesmen, he regarded 1' ranee as the nation which was most likely first to break the peace of the world. He entirely, agreed with the resolutions that were passed in connection with poison gases, but regretted that there was no means of enforcing them. Resolutions passed by the conferences were not enough, but they were valuable so far as they went. Tn like manner it was regretted that no limit had been placed on the construction and use of .aircraft, because they were going to have a, terrible effect in future wars. He mentioned other inventions which would bo used in the next great conflict, which, he said, would not be a ivar between soldiers, but a fight between chemists, and the slaughter would he terrible, in spite of our so-called civilisation. The Pacific Treaty was a good thing so far as it went, and was an improvement on the Anglo-Japanese Treaty. Sir J. Salmond said that the primary object of the treaties which were agreed to was financial, and that what was done had no great ethical significance. It was to be regretted that this was the case, but it would appear from what Sir John thought that all that had been accomplished was to cheapen war. There was no big moral force behind the decisions of the conference. What was wanted in the world was .a real League of Nations, which would use not only all the arts of peace, but also international force, to prevent a recurrence of war. The debate was continued by the Hon. C. J. Parr, the Hon. W. Downie Stewart, and the Hon. J. A. Hanan, after which the Prime Minister’s motion was put and agreed to on the voices.