THE DOMINION AND THE CONGRESS.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 17533, 27 January 1919, Page 4

THE DOMINION AND THE CONGRESS.

It is to be regretted that Mr Massey is showing an imperfect sense of proportion in the claim which he is making for the representation of New Zealand by two delegates at the Peace Congress. It is a claim which the people of the dominion, looking broadly at the whole matter, will find it somewhat difncult to support very strongly. A great many of them, indeed, will regard, it as an effort to "save the face" of his colleague, Sir Joseph Ward, the need of whose presence, together with the Prime Minister, at the Congress was not apparent to them. Mr Massey is said to rest his claim to the representation of New Zealand by two delegates upon the extent of the sacrifices which the dominion made during the war. If the representation at the Congress was to be based on tho measure of sacrifice, it is certain that France and Belgium would both have to be represented more strongly than they are, for the suffering and sacrifices of the other Allied countries were not really comparable with those of th© countries which had to bear the first shock of the German onslaught and which were invaded and over-run by the enemy. It cannot be doubted that on such a basis of representation as that upon which Mr Massey relies in justification of his claim that New Zealand should have two delegates to express her views at the Peace Congress the -representation of some few nations might reasonably be said to be excessive. If, however, the claim were pushed to its logical conclusion, New Zealand would be entitled to as many representatives as Great Britain has, because, Mr Massey says, the sacrifices of the dominion were "proportionately equal to those of the United Kingdom." The admission of the dominions to representation at all at the Congress is a very distinct compliment to them. They might have been excluded from the Congress on'the ground that they are not States exercising sovereign powers. It might have been contended that, as they are a part of the British Empire, any representation accorded to them should be included in the representation of the United Kingdom, and that the extension of direct representation to them has the effect of increasing the number of British delegates and of increasing the voice of Great Britain at the Peace table. In all the circumstances Mr Massey cannot be said to be well-advised in clamouring for seats for both Sir Joseph Ward and himself at the Congress. The plea in which he is joining the Prim© Minister of Australia, that the dominions should have separate representation on a League of Nations, if one should be established, is also being put forward somewhat hastily. The constitutional relations of the dominions to the Mother Country are to form the subject of consideration at a special session of the Imperial Conference after the peace settlement has been effected. Until that Conference, which Mr Massey doubtless hopes to attend, has been held, it is premature on the part of the dominions to raise any claim to representation on a League of Nations. The validity of such a claim is, under existing conditions, by no means free from doubt. Nor, if the League of Nations is to be an association of sovereign States, can there be any desire on the part of the peoples of the dominions to acquire the special status that would entitle them to representation. Mr Hughes and Mr Massey are going too fast. Their excess of zeal must be the cause of some concern and embarrassment to the Imperial Government.