DE VALERA'S ATTITUDE

Greymouth Evening Star, 8 April 1932, Page 7

DE VALERA'S ATTITUDE

NO REPLIES TO DOMINIONS FARMERS AND ANNUITIES , [BY GABLE —PRE. ■ ASSN. —COPYRIGHT.] DUBLIN, April 6. Mr De Valera plans to- introduce his Bill excising the oath from the constitution of the Free State on April 20. He is expected firmly to refuse to take part in any negotiations at London, but to offer to receive a British delegation. No reply is being sent by Mr De Valera to the messages that have been received from the Governments of Australia, of New Zealand, and of South Africa. Mr De Valera’s difficulties are increasing owing to farmers’ refusal to pay the annuity amounts to the Free State Exchequer. Indignation is mounting among those who have already paid their full annuity liabilities. Yet the Government cannot face a “bailiffs’ war” in view of the persistent left wing pressure demanding the abolition of the annuities.

PROPAGANDA SUSPECTED.

LONDON, April 6.

“The Times” says: “British Ministers, generally, are of the opinion that Mr De Valera’s communication to the British Government must be regarded rather as a manifesto to the people of the Free State than as a reasoned reply to Britain.”

SOUTH AFRICA’S APPEAL.*

(Rec. April 8, 9 a.m.) LONDON, April 7.

South Africa has sent a note to Mr de Valera expressing concern as to the Free State’s attitude towards the Empire. The fact that three Dominions have spontaneously 1 followed Britain’s action is regarded at Whitehall as one of the most interesting recent developments in Imperial relations.

Mr Hertzog, while maintaining the attitude of South Africa first and the Empire second, adheres to the principle that the Dominions having complete self-government nothing should be done to injure Imperial loyal and close working relationship among equal partners. AMERICAN COMMENT. NEW YORK, April 6. In a leading article, the “New York Times” says: “With Australia's note of intercession to Mr De Valera, the British Commonwealth of Nations takes on a reality and completeness it has hitherto lacked.” The paper draws attention to the fact that New Zealand’s note on the matter was addressed to the Government at London, but that Australia’s note was addressed to the Government at Dublin, and that it went as a - plea from one sister Dominion to another. “The Times” continues: “One might almost say the Australian note gives practically a new meaning to the British Commonwealth by calling attention to a phase of it that has hitherto been in the background.” The “New York Evening Post” says: “We are witnessing still another step in the constitutional evolution of this remarkable association of English-speaking nations. Furthermore, it is one that Ireland cannot afford to ignore. Jealous of their own rights, the Dominions are no less jealous of their essential unity.”