The New Zealand Times. SATURDAY, JULY 29, 1911. AUSTRALIA AND THE EMPIRE

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 7865, 29 July 1911, Page 4

The New Zealand Times. SATURDAY, JULY 29, 1911. AUSTRALIA AND THE EMPIRE

Both in London and in Australia there will bo warm approval of the comments made by Sir John Murray upon the much-discussed statement attributed to Mr Andrew Fisher, Prime Minister of the Australian Commonwealth, by Mr IV. T. Stead. The Victorian Premier objects to Mr Fisher being judged by the reported “ interview ” instead of by his public utterances. There is all tho more reason why this course should be followed in that Mr Fisher has spoken, both in Australia and London, with no uncertain voice, upon the unwritten terms and conditions of Australia’s relationship to the Empire as a -whole and to tho dominant partner in particular. Within a very few weeks from assuming office Mr Fisher combatted what may be called the “little Australian", point of view expressed by a few members of his party. Ho not only supported file principle of compulsory military service, but ardently championed its adoption. In London, at the Imperial Conference, and at various social gatherings, never a word fell from Mr Fisher to encourage tho belief that ho hold the utterly unreasonable view of colonial responsibilities that has lately found expression in the organs of Dutch reactionaries in South Africa. On tho contrary, his Imperialism, though perhaps expressed in more measured terms than were employed by Sir Joseph Ward, left nothing, to be desired in its honest fervour and sound common-sense. It is not surprising, therefore, that the publication of the u Review of Review’s ’’ article should have given rise to suspicions that Mir Stead had either misunderstood the Australian statesman or had taken from some disjointed'and innocent remark—say, cm tho possible difficulties Which might arise in case of war—a totally misleading meaning. • It is, we may say, no new thing in Mr Stead’s career for that gentleman to publish socalled “interviews’' with more or less celebrated personages, to which, as printed, the persons primarily interested have token very grave exception. In this particular instance it is apparently doubtful whether there was a formal interview at all. If the account given by an Australian gentleman who was present at the breakfast party 'vhich Mr- Fisher temporarily quitted to see Sir Stead for a few minutes be correct, it seems possible that all Mr Fisher really said as to the relations of Australia with Great Britain in case of tho latter becoming involved in war was an isolated remark that if a Dominion did not want to be involved in a British war it could declare its independence. Whether Mr Fisher added that if'any Dominion did elect to adopt such a course it would bo guilty of crass folly, we do not know, but judging Mir Fisher's views on such a question by tho general tone of his speeches on Imperial problems we may fairly assume that such a context existed. Australians will not have to wait very long for tho explanation tho Commonwealth naturally expects, and, in the meantime, Mr Doatin’s advice that judgment should be suspended until Mr Fisher o an speak for himself is a timely warning against haste in judgment. Mr Doakin’s statement, wo may add, is in strikingly pleasant contrast to the suggestion of a Mr Paxton, chairman of the Sydney Chamber of Commerce, who, at the annual meeting of that body on Thursday last, attributed disloyal feelings'towards, the Empire to the Labour party, whoso members he taunted with having made no public disavowal of any sympathy with the opinions placed in the mouth of the Commonwealth Prime Minister by the editor of the “Review of Reviews/’ There was no need for the members of the Sydney Chamber of Commerce to work themselves np into a state of hysteria and cheer “the British Empire undivided.” Australia’s loyalty, her willingness and staunch determination to join hands with Great Britain whenever British and British Imperial interests are threatened are nnqnestioned by any sane person, and the chairman’s implication against tho Labour party, which as a party is just as loyal as any other Australian political party, was a piece of gratuitous impertinence. It will be time enough for Mr Fisher’s political supporters, both in tho Commonwealth and the State ParKamont, to declare they have no sympathy with 'the sentiments attributed to him by Mir Stead when Mr Fisher has admitted their accuracy. Once we have it from Mr Fisher that he did make the: statements ho has been credited with in the now famous “ interview ” it will then be open to the people and press of Australia to discuss their propriety or impropriety. Until then the only decent course to pursue is to follow the excellent advice given by Mr Doakin and Sir John Murray.