83

A.—6

binding link between the parts of the Empire ; it is not a source: from which private citizens will derive their rights. They will derive their rights simply and solely from the authority of the State in which they live;. Hence Indians going to Canada will not be entitled to claim equal political rights with the other citizens of Canada, no more than Canadians going to India or Australia could claim equal political rights there. The conception of the Empire as a League: of Nations ought to do away with, these claims, which are so disturbing and unsettling in the Empire. From this point of view the Indian resolution passed at the last Imperial Conference was a profound .mistake. It was not only impracticable, but it ran counter to the new conception of the, Empire as not a unitary State but a partnership of equal States. It has both theoretically and practically landed us in a false position, and the, sooner we get out of it the better for the future good relations of tho different States of the Empire. The political claims of Indians arising under that resolution should not be allowed to create difficulties for the Governments of the Dominions, which would not have arisen if the constitutional position had been properly appreciated. The Indian Government should not claim from the other Empire Governments what, say, the friendly Governments of Japan anel China would not claim. Anel tho fact is that with neither of these Governments have we any difficulties with the, Dominions, while tho difficulties with India arc notorious and growing. We must get to the right constitutional conception, which 1 take to be the absolute and unquestioned power and authority of each part of the Empire to settle such questions for itself. India has threatened retaliation as a method of reprisal against Dominions which do not concede equal rights to her nationals. This is, again, a false position arising out of the misconception which 1 have explained. There should be no question cither of retaliation or reprisal. India should be free, to deal with nationals of the Dominions on a basis of reciprocal treatment, and neither on her part nor on the part of the Dominions concerned should there be any resentment or ill-feeling in the matter. Our relations in this regarel should be practically those of friendly sovereign States towards each other. Unless this readjustment of viewpoint is brought about it is feared that the question of the position of Indians in the Empire may continue to grow in gravity. I would therefore suggest that for the resolution of the last conference on the subject there be substituted a resolution affirming tho right of each portion of the Empire to regulate citizenship as well as immigration as domestic questions for its own handling and. not affecting the status or dignity of other portions of the Empire, and expressing the opinion that provisions for reciprocal treatment of the nationals of the States of the Empire should not be looked upon as unfriendly or otherwise affecting the: good relations of these States inter se. It would thus be left to the good sense of each State of the Empire: to say what citizen rights shall be enjoyed, and by whom, within their territorial jurisdiction, and no State of the Empire should have claim to force its citizens on any other State, or resent their exclusion or special treatment by the latter. J. C. Smuts. South African Delegation, Savoy Hotel, W.C. 2, 18th October, 1923.

APPENDIX VI. PAPERS REGARDING NATIONALITY QUESTIONS. PART 1. MEMORANDUM PREPARED BY THE COMMONWEALTH GOVERNMENT FOR CONSIDERATION AT THE IMPERIAL CONFERENCE, 1923. The Commonwealth Government desires to make, certain amendments in the Commonwealth Nationality Act, 1920-1922. This Act gives effect, within the Commonwealth, to the system of Empire: naturalization introeiuced by tho British Act, tho British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act, 1914-1918. As the British Act was framed in consultation with the Dominions, the Commonwealth Government desires that the amendments now suggested, should be discussed at the forthcoming Imperial Conference. The amendments desired relate to — (a.) The constitution of the tribunal to which cases of revocation of naturalization are referred for inquiry. (b.) Readmission to British nationality of British-born women married to aliens. (c.) Naturalization of residents of " B " and " C " mandated territories. (a.) Constitution of the Tribunal to which Cases of Revocation of Naturalization are REFERRED FOR INQUIRY. By section 7 of the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act, 1914-1918, the Secretary of State is given power to revoke certificates of naturalization, for the various classes of reasons set out in that section. In some of these cases he is given discretion, and in others he is required, before making an order of revocation, to give the person whose certificate is proposed to be revoked an opportunity of claiming that the case: be referred for inquiry to a committee presided over by a person who holds or has held high judicial office, or to the High Court. Section 8 of the, British Act provides that, if the scheme' of Empire naturalization is adopteel by a Dominion, the, Dominion shall have the same, powers of revocation, there being substituted for " High Court," in section 7, the words " High Court or Superior Court " of the Dominion.