NEW RELATIONS

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLVII, Issue 9, 8 December 1926, Page 12

NEW RELATIONS

BRITAIN AND DOMINIONS. OPINION OF AN EXPERT. LONDON, Nov. 26. “At present Australian State Governors and Governments are in no way affected as the result of the report on inter-imperial relations presented to the Imperial Conference,” said Professor Berriedale Keith, the constitutional authority, in an interview today. “First of all,” he said, “it should be understood that nob a single word is changed even with the GovernorsGeneral. It is true that many changes are suggested, but these must actually be effected before the State Governors are concerned. Even then nobody could at present sav what would happen. It is certain the conference never gave the slightest consideration to the States’ aspect, which is purely domestic and confined to Australia, while the question does not involve Canada, whose provincial Governors are not appointed by Downing Street. UNANIMITY NECESSARY. “If the States question came up, it would have to be between the States and the Common-wealth and afterwards with Downing Street, who would be likely to require unanimity among all the States before favourably considering any suggested changes. “What changes there could be I do not know’, though New South Wales, if not others, apparently is wondering how the States will be affected. The present system of State Governors means that they virtually are in no wise influenced by Downing Street. Moreover, the Australian States have given no indication that 'they are unanimously in favour of the abolition of ‘imported’ Governors. It seems to me that they prefer them, fearing that local men would not be free from the influence of politics. , LOOKING TOO FAR AHEAD. > “The most /vital point, it must be remembered, ris that the expert committee must meet before any one of the very important phases of the inter-Imperial report is ready for adoption. Even then, the Parliaments must give them consideration. Therefore, what applies to State Governors applies practically to the whole report —namely, that nothing can happen until it has been properly laid down what and how it is to happen. “It cannot be over-emphasised that people are reading far too much into the report, which, ini its present state, is little more than a survey. They imagine vast changes which, so far, have certainly not been indicated.” Professor Keith wont on to discuss the general aspects of the matter. He declared emphatically that General Hertzog had failed to get v'hat he was seeking, although he imagined he had got much. “The Imperial Government secured an important victory in connection with foreign relations. “The Irish Free State claimed that treaties concluded by it with the United Kingdom were matters of true international concern, and therefore registered them with the League of Nations. “The Imperial Government denied this doctrine, and held that the existing relations between the several parts of the Empire must be deemed not to lie within the sphere of the League. It is now agreed that general treaties should not be regarded as applicable between the parts of the Empire unless expressly so stated, and w’here international agreements are applicable between parts of the Empire the form of treaty as between the heads of States should be avoided. This may not prove easy in practice, but it represents a distinct defeat for the Free State. GREATER CONSULTATION. “On another vital issue, no concession seems to have been made to the Dominions’ demands. It had been claimed that full powers to enter into treaty arrangements with foreign States should be issued by His Majesty to Dominion representatives on the advice of Dominion Governments only, without the intervention of the Imperial Government, and the ratification should similarly be expressed on Dominion advice alone. “Such procedure would —however little its advocates realised —mean an end to the unity of the Empire, and it is clear that the conference preferred the wiser course of urging greater consultation among members of the Empire and not independent powers of action.” GENERAL HERTZOG DEFINES RESULTS. CAPETOWN, Nov. 26. General Hertzog, in a cabled interview, defines the new relationship as, firstly, equality; secondly, equality internally and externally; and thirdly, equality on the basis of free association. He added that, where traces existed of subordination, it was only so because that Dominion desired them. Britain w’ould conduct international relations, not because she had any right to do so alone, but because the Dominions considered this to be in their own interests. The English press welcomes General Hertzog’s explanation that the term independence was avoided in order to avoid misinterpretation abroad, and also in the Dominions as implying secession.