AUSTRALIA'S "NO" VOTE

Otago Witness, Issue 3331, 16 January 1918, Page 40

AUSTRALIA'S "NO" VOTE

SOME OF THE CAUSES ANALYSED. SHAME OF THE DECENT AUSTRALIAN. (FnoM Oub Own Cokbespondent.) SYDNEY, December 27. If there is one thing more than another about the "No" which Australia pronounced on Thursday on the conscription referendum, a thing which would first strike the visitor to Australia, and yet whioh is scaroely referred to in the newspapers, it Is the shame of all decent Australians. They so ardently desired that their splendid young country should shine forth among the nations, that their countoyrnen at home, by their high resolution andi readiness for sacrifice, should show themselves worthy of the glorious name won by their soldiers abroC-I, that Australia should show that she was not blind to the price already paid by France and Britain for their common liberty. Instead of that, an extraordinary combination of ignorance, Sinn Feinism, disloyalty, hooliganism, and pure cowardice has gained sufficient power to stand Australia up before the World as something of a mean and paltry spirit for all history to jeer at. It may not be quite so bad as that, but the doeent Australian to-day is taking a very gloomy view of it. Hia shame is a very real and traglo thing. At the. present moment it looks as if about 2,000,000 voters have given a vn.3*joicity of 170,000 against the very mild form of conscription suggested. The soldiers' votes, now arriving, will give a for "Yes," but trjfiy cannot possibly wipe out that 170,000 majority for "No." Everyone is trying to analyse this "No" vote—to discover what influences were at work. Here are the principal causes assigned i

Personal and political hostility to Mr Hughes, An almost solid Roman Catholic vote against conscription. The fear of tho farming population that they would bo left without adequate supplies of labour. The fear of the young married men that the system, once applied, would

sooner or later affect them. War weariness. These are causes, of course, -which supplement suoh ir.fluenoea as would naturally bo against conscription. There are, lor instance,. th« great mass of extreme Labourites. They are anti-everything, and their hundreds of thousands of votes went solidly into the scale' against the Government's proposals. One had only to attend a few of the recent conscription meetings to undertsand what a mean-spirited, noisv mob they are. They "don't believe in the capitalists' war" j they "Ain't goin* to play the British game"; in the-ir opinion it is ( " time enough to fight when Australia is attacked"; and one would as soon expect to see bullocks marching in step to the "Marseillaise" as these people offering to suffer from motives of pure altruism. They are not deliberately disloyal. They ae simply and inconceivably stupid, and since every shoddy politician and place-seeker panders to them for their votes, they have come to arrogantly regard themselves aa the true Australians. The deliberaely disloyal section is too big to make for comfort. The Sinn Fein division of the Roman Catholics, the still unsuppressed I.W.W. follower^. the people with German blood, all the weird community of cranks who cannot be other than vipers in her hospitable bosom, and, of course, they are the first to sting her. An amazing lot of them have flourished in this kindly soil, and they have always led the slogan, "Australia first," because they see a way to damage that England that madq Australia possible. But, although these various classes between them make a total that is appalling in the eyes of anyone desiring to visualise the future great Australian nation, thev are not enough to account for that "No majority. So one must seek the final oausos in the little list tabulated above. THE FUTURE OF MR HUGHES.

Which of the five influences tabulated carried the most weight would be hard to say. There is no doubt that the pyrotechnical quarrels and general mad irresponsibleness of Mr Hughes aroused much resentment in that numerous class which is easily swayed by personal prejudices. It is said that Mr Hughes is a great political leader; it is another way of saymg that he is full of trioks. It was known that there had been a too liberal use of the censorship; people wej-8 alarmed by the manner in which the War Precautions Act could be made to serve the Government. The anti-oonscriptionists mode a great hit with a poster: "Can You Trust Him? People knew that Mr Hughes was meant, and it crystallised a fear very general m the minds of the young married men—that, once "Yes" was carried, this very clever Mr Hughes would get them, as well as the single eligibles. They took no risk, and they voted "No." I said, some weoks ago, that if No were carried, the nowspapere would have no mercy oh Mr Hughed. The morning after the poll there appeared an interview fri which Mr D. R. Hall the New South Wales Attorney-general, bitterly attacked Mr Hughes, and called on the Nationalists to find another leader. Most of the newspapers have already taken up the cry. It fs rather a miserable attempt this of pullin* down the leader because the campaign hoi failed, and this is being pointed out m violent language by Mr Hughes s most faithful followers; but Mr Hughes has made so many tragic errors in tactics in connection with the two conscription campaigns that the attack was bound to come. The outcome of it all, ma poht.col sense, remains to be seen. Mr Hughes said that the Government would resign if No were carried I that was quite clear and explicit. Meetings of the Nationalists are already summoned, and the resignation of the Government is expeoted soon. After that, anything may happen. There is a strong find growing opinion that the Nationalists will refuse to depose Mr Hughes from the leadership, and that, when other attempts to form a Government hare failed ho will come back to power as Prime Minister again. In the meantime, a strong party, bshind which are Mr HoJman and Mr D. R. Hall, the New South Wales political leaders, are doing everything possible to advance the claims of Mr William

Watt, who is one of the most promising figures in Federal politics to-day. There is likely to be a trial of strength between these parties, but no one anticipates a general election.

THE CATHOLICS AND THE FARMERS.

The Catholic vote seems to have been better organised against conscription than in 1916, and it has been felt Ihe organisation was made easier because the ex-

tremely bitter quarrel between Dr Mannix, tho anti-conscriptionist Archbishop of Melbourne, and Mr Hughes aroused Catholio prejudices against tho Prime Minister and his cause. r lne Roman Catholio Archbishop of Sydney, Dr Kelly, also came out at the last moment against conscription. * Tho Roman Catholic vote in this country is a more solid and formidable thing than anything known In New Zealand, and one cannot say that it is completely friendly to Great Britain. It might have been different had Mr Hughes not quarrelled with Dr Mannix.

Why the farmers should have turned against conscription it is not easy to explain on any othor ground than that of pure selfishnessj but that they did vote "No" in great numbers is shown by the detailed voting figures. It is said that they resent their treatment at the hands of the Federal Government in respect to wheat and other things. This* country vote is one of tho most destressing features of the referendum j one somehow always looks to the farmers for loyalty and intelligence.

80,000 DISFRANCHISED.

It is officially estimated that the regulation which made it illegal for persons of enemy birth or descent to vote had the effect of disfranchising approximately betwoen 80,C60 and 100,000 persons fn the commonwealth. So> that they would have no excuse for exercising the franchise, warning notices were conspicuously posted outside all polling booths, A report from Queensland says: A number of persons of enemy birth suffered disappointment at not being allowed to vote. Tho majority nursed" their chagrin in silenoo, but a section vehemently attacked the Prime Minister and the Government for disfranchising them. They revealed themselves in true colours as anti-supporters.^ In some cases (says an Adelaide message) was imposed on voters. In one instance, a comparatively young married woman, who has five brothers actually at the front, applied for a voting paper; but since she- had married a man with, a German name, the clerk was compelled question her. She resenied tho " indignity ' and would not vote. Much feeling was caused generally by the challenging of votes.

VOTERS ALL ROUND THE WORLD. Some of the newspapers, commenting on the referendum voting, have pointed out the interesting fact that the Australian soldiers and sailors who have been asked to vote "Yes" or "No" have sent thenanswers from so many different points that they practically encircle the world. Men of the Australian Imperial Forces, for whom the oversea voting provision was made, are in camps and hospitals in every part of the United Kingdom. On the Continent of Europe, they are on the fighting fronts in Belgium, France, Italy, and Salonika; and the hospitals-7-for nurses voted also—are somewhere behind the lines in Belgium and .France. In Asia, polling booths were provided at Bombay and Poona, in Mesopotamia, and in Palestine. Although Jerusalem has only just been . occupied, it is thought likely that the Light Horee voted there. In Africa, there was a polling place in Cairo, ana at the southern end of the Dark Continent there were polling places in at least two norts. In the New World, vo'ting papers were issued as far north as lat. 40.

Wireless telegraphy played a great part in reaching bodies of men afloat on noany seas, on warships and transports, Much organisation and an enormous amount of work were required to gather in these votes from almost all the oceans of the world.

Nearer home, polling places existed in the Northern Territory as far south as Alice Springs; in the Paoifio Islands, with Rabaul a* a centre; in Norfolk Island, New Guinea, Woodlark Island, and Samarai.