The Waikato Times. With which is incorporated The Waikato Argus. THURSDAY, JULY 28, 1921. DOMINIONS’ STATUS

Waikato Times, Volume 94, Issue 14711, 28 July 1921, Page 4

The Waikato Times. With which is incorporated The Waikato Argus. THURSDAY, JULY 28, 1921. DOMINIONS’ STATUS

Mr Hughes may be trusted to keeh himself at all times prominently before public eye. His last exploit is to demand that the Conference on disarmament shall be held in London. It will be remembered that this Conference is the result of an invitation on the part of the United States to Britain, France, Italy and Japan to meet at Washington to discuss the possibility of limiting armaments. Having issued invitations which have been accepted, it might be thought that the question of where the Conference should be held lay with the originators of the proposal, but Mr Hughes says that this is not so, because in the first place Australia is deeply concerned in the question, and .secondly because ho is anxiqus to return to Melbourne. The first reason is a perfectly good and logical one, but Jic can hardly expect that the representatives of the Powers will break all precedents and throw all considerations of courtesy aside to meet his personal convenience. Mr Hughes’ action, however, is likely to have two ycry important and somewhat unexpected results, in bringing to the front the question whether Prime Ministers are the one and only person in each country who can deal with constitutional questions, and the other more serious question whether the Dominions are independent nations, or members of the British Empire. For the United States have countered Mr Hughes’ demand that the Conference be hold in London by declaring that the British Empire will have one vote in the same way as the other countries. It will be remembered that the United States raised this same question when the Senate were first asked to ratify the League of Nations compact. They protested against having but one vote while the British Empire had six. In taking their, present stand they are, therefore, acting consistently with their prior contention. At the same time we could well wish that the question had been raised at some other time, because it is one that affects Australia and New Zealand in a special degree, and if wc arc ruled out of court on account of Mr Hughes’ unfortunate method of urging ids claims to be heard, wc shall have good grounds of complaint. It is in any case certain that the anomalous position which the Dominions occupy is certain to lead to confusion. They claim at present to be independent nations, and at the same time to be members of the British Empire. ' This is more than a mere matter of form. As independent nations they will have dealings with other countries. It is certain that at some time or other there will be a difference of opinion bclwccn some of the Dominions, or between the Dominions and the Qld Country. It is as likely to be one as the other. If that happens, which opinion is the, foreign country to accept as the legitimate voice of the Empire? Wc have another instance of the confusion in what is now taking place here. Messrs Armours have been refused a permit to ship a quantity of meat w’hich they have lying in frozen storage. They protested to the Acting Prime Minister, who gave his reasons for the action ■ which had been taken. They returned to the charge; and Sir Francis Bell then asked them to put their communication through the British Cabinet. Wc do not pretend to know which is the correct course, hut we can understand the American Government feeling mystified. It is imperative that the Dominions decide what their position is really to toe, for so far it appears that in their anxiety to proclaim the fact of independence limy have not stopped to think of all that is involved therein. They are very loath to enter into any Imperial Council, and manifest the same objection to any curtailment of their powers that the Prime Ministers of larger countries have done to the League proposals. It would seem, however, that the logic of events will compel them to consider something of Die kind. After all I lie progress of mankind is bound up with the union of men in ever widening groups, always provided that such union is voluntary. It would bn tragic in the highest degree if the British Empire, which is the highest achievement yet compassed in such

anion of diverse elements, were suffered to fall to pieces because of the want

of sufficient statesmanship. Yet we are constantly reminded that our present anomalous condition cannot last. We must either go forward or back. Doubtless we shall see a move in that direction in a year or two, urged thereto by Pacific problems, although it would be pleasant to think that a step so momentous were taken from higher motives.

The question of representation of the country by Prime Ministers is a matter of less importance, but it is one that requires to he considered. The idea of conferences at intervals of one or two years, attended by Prime Ministers because they arc able to pledge their country to some particular line of action, is strictly a policy of the closet philosopher. In the first place it is impossible for one man to do more than a fixed amount, and if he undertakes business beyond his capacity he is simply representing the views of his secretaries. It would be far better that the country should bo represented by somebody of its own choosing. If a Prime Minister is to be away for many months at a time his own country must suffer, or someone must take his place. The concentration of# every kind of business in one man’s hands does not make for efficiency, for division of labour is good in the political as in the business world. There is another consideration which has recently been brought prominently' before the world. It may well happen that a Prime Minister’s hold on his position is not strong. Those who sit in conference with him may discount his arguments for that reason. This is not a far-fetched objection, because we saw President Wilson’s action disowned by his countrymen, and it disposes of the idea that a Prime Minister must necessarily be the right man in the right place. One man rule is not a success, whatever may be the title which the one man holds.' Our external business is growing large enough to demand the exclusive attention of one man, and with the possibility that such knowledge may some day be of use, more men would be prepared to take an interest in constitutional questions. At present there is no inducement.