MR WATT’S RESIGNATION.

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLIII, Issue 1845, 21 June 1920, Page 5

MR WATT’S RESIGNATION.

STATEMENT BY EX-TREASURER.

3y Electric Telegranb.—Copyright. LONDON, June 18. Mr Watt has informed the Australian Press Association that he has not received the exact text of Mr'Hughes’s statement in Sydney, and the cable messages to British newspapers nearly all vary in some particulars. As Mr Hughes says the resignation is unjustified he wished to make a brief reply. “At the commencement of my work in London,” he said, “1 was seriously embarrassed in the negotiations on wool matters and related finance by Mr Hughes’s interference. Undeterred by the difficulties thus created I pushed on Soon it became plain to the British authorities and myself that as Mr Hughes was cabling direct to the British Government propositions differing from those submitted by me, such important negotiations could not simul-1 ti’iieously be conducted by telegram with Mr Hughes in Australia and my-1 self in person.” Continuing his statement Mr Watt said: “I informed Mr Hughes I could ; not proceed further with my mission until my position had been defined. His reply was not satisfactory, and Mr Hughes further indicated that Cabinet g< nerally did not agree with my attitude. Therefore, after mature consideration, I felt the only course open to me was to resign. During extensive cablegraphic correspondence other matters arose, illustrating the divergence o! opinion between my colleagues and myself. To one to which Mr Hughes alluded, I was advised by the Government that I had been appointed plenipotentiary for Australia in connection with the Spa Conference, but at the same time I was naively directed not to agree with any alterations in certain matters without Mr Hughes’s authority. I replied I couldn’t assume the garb of a plenipotentiary with the powers of a telegraph messenger. Briefly, I found myself in this position. In matters which arose in discussion with British Ministers, and which word not on the .catalogue of my mission. I was not permitted to do anything.” Mr Watt concluded: “Respecting problems which I was sent from Australia to settle I was to act under directions from Melbourne. That status I could not accept, as it was that of an official and not a Minister of State. In my cables I made it plain that on the question of .finance requiring special knowledge and swift decision I could not work on a chain twelve thousand miles long. There are many things I may say when I return to Australia, but I do not desire at present to indulge in a press controversy with my late colleagues. Ti Mr Hughes considers these remarks uiaccni;t ' or unfair I invite him to lay the cables before Parliament