INTERVENTION BY NEW ZEALAND.

Otago Witness, Issue 2404, 29 March 1900, Page 13

INTERVENTION BY NEW ZEALAND.

NEW ZEALAND'S 'ACTION

CItLTICISED.

THE PREMIER'S REPLY. LONDON, March 20. Mr Parker, the Westralian federal delegate has arrived in London.

March 21.

The amendments suggested by the law officers of the Crown in the Commonwealth Bill refer to the navigation laws and the application and validity of the Colonial Laws Act of 1865 to the Commonwealth. Mr Dickson, of Queensland, denies that the Constitution is unaltered, but expresses the opinion that Queensland wishes the plenary appeal to the Privy Council to be

maintained,

Lord Carrington, speaking at the City Club, said that the federation of the Australian colonies having been ratified by a great majority, Britain should not arrogantly order another compact to be made. He expressed the hope that the Liberals would stand shoulder to shoulder and refuse to sanction any alteration in the Bill.

March 22.

The Right Hon. Mr Seddon has instructed Mr Reeves to secure an amendment allowing outstanding States to enter the Commonwealth on the same terms as the Federal States, empowering outstanding

States to federate in part, say, as regards defence, the use of the federal courts within certain limits, and to make treaties with the federated States.

Mr Barton, replying to Mr Heeves's request for a consultation with the delegates, said lie was bound to obey the popular

mandate, and secure the bill unaltered. It would not affect the interests of outstanding States.

The St. James Gazette, interviewed, attributes to Mr Reeves the statement that he was instructed to actively oppose the bill and advocate a new referendum. The Federal delegates inquired if this statement Avas authentic. Mr Reeves said he was annoyed at the publication of the interview. He explains that he does not desire to oppose the bill except with regard to the above amendment, which would entail delay of considerably less than a year. He wifches to proceed by friendly arrangements.

March 23.

Mr Chamberlain entertained the Federal delegates. The guests included Mr Balfour, the Duke of Devonshire, Sir Richard Webster, Sir Robert Herbert, Lord Lansdowne, Lord Selborne,.and Lord Hopeloun.

March 24

The legal members of the federal delegations prepared, and the others adopted, memoranda for submission through Mr Chamberlain to the Cabinet defining their position. They state that they have no authority to go behind the referendum vote. The bill was subjected to criticisms, and a close and elaborate legal analysis of the questions of the law officers made and conclusions arrived at on every amendment. It is contended that a judicious and generous Parliament would respect every line and letter of the constitution, also of covering clauses. The Australians considered fit to make a constituTion, and surely their judges were the best interpreters and more familiar with, the working than judges at a distance. The rights of the rest of the Empire were not prejudiced. It concludes with a strong appeal to trust the British race, which, neither in Australia nor elsewhere, ever abused the confidence reposed in them. This trust is the real bond of the Empire.

MELBOURNE, March 22.

The Premier states that the colonies have given Westralia every opportunity to come into the Commonwealth, and lie thinks it unlikely that Mr Seddon will countenance Mr Reeves's action. He believed that MiBarton's reference to clause 6 should read

"chapter six,'

The Premier is surprised at Mr Re'cves'rj attitude on the Commonwealth Bill: It

was wholly unexpected, and therefore he heartily agreed in making a joint -representation to Mr Seddon. The Premier says that there is no doubt that if New Zealand desired to federate at any time the other colonies would give every facility for her doing so.

March 24

The Age says that the part played by New Zealand will hardly be regarded as friendly by those colonies which have done all the hard work of furthering the union. Mr Reeves understands his success to mean re-opening the whole matter. Had New Zeal-md earned the right to lay down conditions by taking a fair share in the deliberations and difficulties faced by the mainland colonies, she would have known enough of the jealousies and divisions that exist to make further delay a real danger. The Age a,sl« by what right can a colony that has done nothing to further the federal movement step in at the last moment and attempt to dictate terms upon which the others should unite. The federating colonies certainly desire a friendly arrangement, but know the risks of further cobbling. That is the reason why they demand the bill, the whole bill, and nothing but the bill.

SYDNEY, March 21

Mr Lyne has received the following cable from 'Mr Barton: — "The St. James's Gazette publishes an interview with Mr Reeves, stating that New Zealand was opposed to the Commonwealth Bill, especially clause 6 and the Privy Council clauses, urging delay, and taking a further referendum in Australia. The tone is discourteous, and we doubt Mr Seddon's approval. Suggest join in a representation to New Zealand, as this is a most unfriendly action, and advise us as to the result. From the report I infer Mr Parker, the Westralian delegate, and Mr Reeves are collaborating. Communicate this to the other Premiers."

Mr Lyne wired the message to the Victorian Premier, adding : "Do you agree to the proposal making joint representation to New Zealand?" Mr M'Lean immediately replied, agreeing.

March 22

The Premiers of Queensland and South Australia join in a representation to Mr Seddon with reference to Mr Reeves's action.

March 23.

Mr Lyne, in his own name and that of the other Premiers, wired Mr Barton's message to Mr Seddon. He asks if the apparently unfrieridly attitude taken by Mr Reeves has Mr Seddon's approval.

March 24

The Daily Telegraph, in a leader, warmly resents Mr Reeves's action regarding the Commonwealth Bill. It says the real interest in the thing is Mr Seddon wanting amendments allowing the States now standing aloof to enter on the same terms as original States. That would be a hotchpotch form of federation, which the Imperial Parliament should not accede to. The Telegraph asks : Why did Mr Seddon not raise his objections while the constitution was under consideration, or at least before the delegates sailed? All along we had been asked to regard New Zealand as definitely standing out.

March 26

The Herald says that New Zealand, " after taking a not very enthusiastic part in the

Convention of 1891, and who did not think it worth while to make an effort to join thai of 1898, now seeks to raise difficulties. , Under these circumstances the action of tha New Zealand Premier, through the Agent-general, must be regarded as an unwarranted and unwarrantable interference i with the expressed will of these colonies. Before the bill went Home Mr Seddon and his colleagues had abundant opportunities of pressing on our attention any objectionthey might have entertained as to the mci- ! dance of the measure in the case of the nonfederating States, but no such opportunity appears to have been taken."

The banks having head offices here are jßetitioning Mr Chambsiiain to main-tain

the appeal to the Privy Council in dealing with the ■ Commonwealth's Constitution. '

-•Mr Seddon has informed Mr Lyne that he- has been at great pains to circulate amongst the press that ' New Zealand wishes certain amendments to be obtained in a friendly manner, but otherwise has no hostility towards the Commonwealth Bill. Ha refers to Mr Reeves having cleared up ilia misapprehension caused through a statement by the St. James's Budget. Mr Seddon claims that it would have been out of place to have interfered in a friendly manner when the bill was before the Australian people ; br.t, being before the Imperial Parliament, it was his duty to see that it was not unjust towards New Zealand or any other outlying State. It is also understood one of the delegates in an interview in the Daily Chronicle used language in which very free reference was made to Sir John Forrest and Mr Seddon doing an injustice, and declaring that he (Mr Seddon) wished to stop the people of New Zealand from expressing an opinion on federation.

PERTH, March 24.

The Premier, Sir John Forrest, has received a cable from Mr Parker, the colonial delegate, stating that he is not acting in concert with Mr Reeves. The Premier has wired Mr Lyne that he regrets that Mi Barton made such a representation as may cause the inference that Westralia is intriguing to create difficulties. Such a representation is absolutely without foundation, as Sir John desires to act in the most friendly way with the other colonies.

ADELAIDE, March 23.

The Premier, discussing Mr Reeves's action, said he imagined tkat it arose from Mr Seddon's desire to delay federation until New Zealand had had an opportunity of expressing a possible desire to join the Commonwealth. She had had plenty of opportunity of joining in the past, but now, like Westralia, does not like the prospect of being left out.

March 23.

The Premier considers Mr Keeves's actions will not delay the passage of the Commonwealth Eill in the Imperial Parliament.

BRISBANE, March 23.

The Premier, while protesting against the action' of Mr Reeves, said that he would be glad to see New Zealand and Westralia join the Federation.

MR SEDDON REPLIES TO MR LYNE,

The following cables have been received by and sent by the Premier, the Right Hon. R. J. Seddon, relative to the question of the Australian Federation Bill and alleged opposition of Agent-general for New Zealand

thereto : —

The Premier of New South Wales cabled as follows: —

''Sydney, March 23. "Mr Barton rabies that St. James's Gazette publishes interview with Mr Reeves, stating New Zealand opposes Commonwealth Bill, especially chapter 6 and Privy Council clauses, and urges delay and further referendum in Australia, arid the tone is discourteous. I am authorised by Victoria, South Axistralia, Tasmania, and Queensland to make joint representation lo you as to apparently unfriendly attitude taken up by Now Zealand, and to ask whether Mr Reeves' s attitude meets with your approval. — (Signed) Lyke." To this the Hon. Mr Seddon has replied as follows : —

On receipt of your cablegram of 23rd, I forwarded copy to our Agent-general, from whom I have received the following reply: — " I have been at great pains to circulate among the public press an explanation of New Zealand's wishes to have certain amendments obtained in a friendly manner, but otherwise no hostility to Australian Federation Bill. With reference to telegram from Prime Minister, New South "Wales, matter has arisen from rejoinder in St. James's Gazette, which was promptly corrected by me as soon as seen, and the delegates have been informed accordingly. Previous to tliia had asked for interview with Australian delegates, who replied indicating that their mandate is to secure passage of bill without amendment. ' All we wish is the open-door policy, which as bill now stands does not provide for, and I claim it would have been out of place for us to have interfered even in a friendly manner when the bill was beforo the Atistralian people and the Australian Parliament. The matter now being before Imperial Parliament, it is our duty to see that the measure as passed shall not be unjust in. its incidence to New Zealand, and other outlying States. I understand that one of the colonial delegates in an interview published in the Chronicle was not over particular in stating that I wished to stop tha people of New Zealand from expressing an opinion upon federation. — (Signed) R. J« Seddon. Premier,