IMPERIAL TREATIES

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18873, 28 May 1923, Page 8

IMPERIAL TREATIES

PRECEDENT INSTITUTED BY CANADA. EVOLUTION OP THE CONSTITUTION. THE CLAIM-. FOR EQUALITY. (From Odb Own Correspondent.), LONDON, April 13. While Sir John Sinclair's motion in the New Zealand Legislative Council with regard to dominion representation in London has led to- widespread discussion, the Fisheries Treaty recently concluded between Canada and the United States has also led to speculation as to evolution of the British Constitution’. Canada’s action undoubtedly points to the need for greater co-operation between the dominions themselves. Great Britain, according to The Times, would no more dream of perpetuating any uncalled-ior interference with the dominions’ concerns, after the Early Victorian style, then in the concerns of the moon. If this is so, it is evident, if each dominion pursues its own course without consultation and without cooperation, there are likely to be serious complications. "ho agreement,” says The Times in a leading article, ‘‘between a dominion and a foreign State can safely be regarded as "entirely and exclusively that dominion’s concern. Those who think otherwise should study the history of the abortive Reciprocity Agreement between Canada and the United States in , 19.11. The question ’of responsibility, too, is fundamental. A treaty signed in the King’s name cannot rest entirely and exclusively on the responsibility of one nation of the Commonwealth, though it may be desirous and fully capable of bearing it alone. In . the event of any dispute arising from the treaty; in practice, whatever the theory may be, the King’s must,, in the last resort, be honoured by all his subjects. That is what the Montreal Star means when it candidly declares that ‘if Mr Lapointe did, not sign Imperially’ when he: signed the treaty between the King and the American Executive, then his signature is not worth the ink he made it with.’ This being so, is if altogether reasonable'that such treaties should be concluded, as the Cape Times seems to wish, solely on the authority of one dominion Government, without the association, even in form, of any other. Government in the Commonwealth. We think that if the people of this country or of other dominions realised that such a treaty might involve them in an international dispute, and conceivably even in. war, they would that, this,,■ ultimate ■.. responsibility should somehow be registered at the moment of its conclusion.”

CONSULTATION. ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS. ‘lt is highly desirable oh general grounds that some means of personal consultation between the 'Governments of the commonwealth should bs provided to span the intervals, a'r’ten dangerously long, between the meetings; of Prime Ministers. If a 'conference; could be maintained, in more permanent session, by- means of resident or regular visiting Ministers acting as Prime Ministers’ deputies, this body might be associated with the Government of the dominion directly, concerned in the procedure of concluding and signing separate treaties. Recently in the Legislative Council of New Zealand Sir John Sin-' olair advocated the appointment of special dominion Ministers for the purpose of Imperial consultation. Sir Francis Bell objected to the proposal on the ground that such Ministers would have no more power or authority than the High Commissioners. The specific form of tire body to be devised for the' purposes of regular Imperial consultation on foreign affairs may be a matter for further, discuss.'on, but that personal consultation is desirable is beyond dispute. The work of such'A body would not , imply any external interference in local affairs." There is none now. It would be mainly a matter of form. , But constitutional forms are seldom quite unimportant. If they are slurred over or dispensed with, the rcsonsibilfties they register may be too easily forgotten.” Professor Berriedale Keith declares in dogmatic terms that the King cannot act on the advice of more than one Government. + Sir Edward Davson, who holds • important positions in Imperial and Colonial organisations, maintains that the “increasing autonomy which the dominions have gradually received, from the Crown—the culmination of-.which is the power of making foreign treaties —is a ■cherished possession'which will not willingly bo abandoned to the overlordship of a superParliament. Far different is it with the Standing Conference. There questions may be argued, problems solved, and decisions taken, but the-carrying into effect will still rest ultimately with each individual Legislature. This is a loose form of federation which gives the opportunity for joint counsel and united action,: but the bonds of which will never’chafe as they would under a more rigid system.” THE COMMON INTEREST. Mr G. L. Haggen (formerly of Napier, afterwards of British Columbia, now lecturer on . law at Leeds University) has also addressed a letter to The Times on the subject. ‘lt would be well if it were clearly recognised in this country.” he says, "that a denial of the nationhood, which a great body of opinion in the dominions believes them to have won, .is incompatible with Imperial unity. The full recognition of that status would appear to be a necessary preliminary step to the constructive action which the situation clearly demands. But the matter cannot , rest there. It will be necessary to devise some means of preventing the conclusion of any treaty which any part of the Commonwealth may find itself unable to approve. The British peoples beyond the s'-as are no strangers to federal . forms of Government; they know well what it is to surrender some liberty of action in the common interest, and they would probably .be willing now to consent -to some restriction of their treaty-making power provided i the restriction; were imposed not only upon them "but upon this country as well. The principles of equalty and of autonomy must be scrupulously respected; at the same time, there appears- to be room for an agreement to the effect that no treatv shall be regarded ns binding upon the British Commonweolth until it lias been ratified not only by the Mother Country, but also by each of the dominions. The King might, for this purpose, require the unanimous advice of his Ministers throughout the Commonwealth. PERMANENT CONSULTING, BODY. “ Such a solution is obviously open to many objections,” continues Mr Haggen. “ It would involve a great concession on the part of this country, but her prestige and her position in Europe, together with the respect ih which she is justly held by the dominions, ensure her the active control of foreign' affairs. Again, serious delay might occur' in ratification, but the fact that the treaty-making power rests with the Crown should reduce this to' a minimum. In moat cases ratification would be merely a matter of form, but none the less valuable for that. It may be that a permanent body always at hand for consultation would meet the case, but the' opinion of Sir Francis Bell probably represents opinion in the dominions. Still mere difficult, because it is so closely wrapped up with finance, is the problem of how to secure the equitable co-operation of all parts of the Empire in support of a common policy. To a solution of these suggested solution of the' question of the treaty-making Power would, perhaps, contribute. It would support, by a powerful sanction, the existing practice of requiring the assent of the dominions wherever their interests are directly concerned. It would make consultation more necessary than ever, and would, if anything, increase the need for the speeding up of Empire communications. Moreover, it is the question of the treaty-making Power that holds, more than any other, ‘ the seeds of dissension, ’ It would be a calamity if this were to become a serious political issue in any of the dominions.” ■ I