THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 1935 THE CASE OF MR. HUGHES

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXII, Issue 22262, 9 November 1935, Page 12

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 1935 THE CASE OF MR. HUGHES

t When a member of a Government is asked by his chief to resign, the people of his country are stirred to take notice, perhaps to take sides. At least they want to know the reason why so unusual a course is taken. When the Minister thus compelled to step down and out has an eminent record in politics, and when the question at issue between him and his chief is one of intense and practical interest to almost all the world, the people of other countries must regard the event with much more than idle curiosity. So the dismissal of Mr. W. M. Hughes from the Federal Cabinet of Australia calls for close heed far beyond the borders; of the Commonwealth. Mr. Hughes, has resigned, but his resignation does not end the controversy. The burden of the complaint made against him . by the Prime Minister is his raising a question that, in the opinion of Cabinet, ought not to have been raised at this juncture. The question, in a phrase, is that of the League and sanctions. Australia, with other members of the British Commonwealth and as a member of the League, is committed to support of the League's measures against Italy. Its Government had given an assurance of this, and ifi furtherance of its pledge a Sanctions Bill had been prepared for submission to the Federal Parliament. In the midst of this Cabinet programme, on the very eve of the appearance of the bill, Mr. Hughes published a book, "Australia and War To-day," in which he expresses opinions contrary to those underlying the Government's policy and given effect in the bill which has jnow ptissed the Federal House. Of course, according to all accepted canons of parliamentary government obtaining in British countries, Mr. Lyons felt compelled to ask Mr. Hughes to leave the Cabinet. He had no option. The doctrine of corporate Cabinet responsibility is too well esitablished, and too obviously reasonable, to admit of any other course. Indeed, it may fairly be argued that Mr. Hughes, knowing that the book he intended to publish immediately would be at variance with the Government's attitude, should have resigned before its publication. However, it would be unfair to Mr. Hughes to dismiss the subject so summarily. Perusal of his book reveals a sharp cleavage between his views and those embodied in the Government's measure. He believes that the effort to impose economic sanctions upon Italy must be futile unless supported by force; they must involve war or are no better than an empty gesture. But the League has not gone bo far as to consider the imposing of military sanctions. Intention tc> do so has been virtually disavowed. Use of them may prove inevitable. However, they are not in the League's programme as now declared. Mr. Hughes frankly believes that, until the League is prepared in all respects to employ force against a covenant-breaking aggressor, it cannot offer an adequate guarantee of security as a condition precedent, to peace; he goe3 further, holding that the difficulties obstructing the use of force by the League are so great that it will never be able to give that guarantee. Thus he reaches his conclusion that the urgent duty of every peace-loving nation is to look to its own defences. His book has been written in advocacy of a more vigorous defence policy for Australia. He presents his argument well. Of the) League's ideals and its many-sided work in promoting international co-operation he has nothing but good to say, and he is not halfhearted about this. Nevertheless, he develops the thesis of the League's impotence as a peacemaker so thoroughly and ardently that his book diametrically differs from the policy now being pursued. What he says cannot be ignored as hopelessly erroneous. He knows the League at first hand—its initiation, its history, its tasks, it/s difficulties. Whether the matter touched be legal theory or factual experience, he is equally at home, and he writes clearly, incisively, and with a degree of selfcommand wholly admirable. In only one particular is his argument vulnerable. Affirming that "the great outstanding fact" is the League's lack of power to implement its findings against a front-rank State such as Italy, he halts short of advising that the League be either abolished or limited to its less-ambitious activities. In Parliament he has since voted with the Government and assisted the passage of the bill. There is inconsistency in this, but not so much inconsistency as his critics may argue. He can defend himself by saying that he is prepared to give the League opportunity to prove that he is wrong, although he is persuaded that its failure will prove him right. This attitude, howdver, emphasises the political wrong of which he is deemed guilty. So long as there existed even the most slender chance —and there is apparently much

more than that —of the League's succeeding with sanctions against Italy, he should have refrained from voicing publicly his disbelief in the policy. The head and front of his offending is his publication of his opinions at this crucial time. He has pleaded that his object was to prove the folly of thinking that the League can always preserve peace and consequently the folly of neglecting national defence. Readers of his book will appreciate his effort to arouse Australia to a realisation of the danger of inadequate preparation against war, and they will not miss his eagerness to enforce his argument by emphasis on the limited ability of the League to provide a security making national defence less urgent. Had he published his book at any time other than this one of crisis for the method of economic sanctions, it would have been a highly useful contribution to the discussion of a great question. As things are, it is an indiscretion not to be lightly condoned. His splendid patriotism has led him to speak inopportunely. While this fault is serious, all the more so because of his brilliant abilities and his long political experience, there must be unfeigned sympathy with him in suffering so heavy a penalty for his conscientious courage in a national cause.