DECLARATION OF LONDON.

Southland Times, Issue 14632, 24 January 1911, Page 5

DECLARATION OF LONDON.

STILL MORE PROTESTS HOW DOaiISOKS ARE AFFECTED. (By Telegraph—Presa Association—Copyright). LONDON, January 23. Received January 23, 10.40 p.m. The “Daily Mail” says that Australia's protest against the Declaration of London is merely a foretaste of opposition from every quarter of the Empire when the real inwardness of the new code of war and its Imperial menace is revealed. The Dominions have been overlooked throughout, and no provision has been made for the appointment of ' their judges, though Greece, Columbia and Uruguay have been given the right to nominate one judge each in various years. Yet the shipping of the Dominions is sixth in the shipping world. Why should Australia and New Zealand be treated as inferior states in civilisation to Columbia? The "Chronicle” says that the Declaration is of transcendant importance. Its immense complexity will cause delay until the Conference, and afford time for reflection. Article 34 is decidedly ambiguous. If articles 33 and 34 had been as explicit as Sir E. Grey’s letter to the Glasgow Chamber of Commerce on 13th October there would be no ground for misconception. It is a great gain that raw material for nearly all Britain's industries is not declarable as contraband. CAPETOWN, January 33. The “Cape Times” says that it is not surprised that Australia has protested, and recommends the South African Union Government to consider the matter. The paper points out that bullion may be treated as conditional contraband and be liable to seizure. A South African gold shipment often amounts to a million nad a half and offers a tempting prize to a raiding cruiser.