Hughes Speaks!

"All Hell Is Not Going To Take Our Mandate Away" is "Mis interpretation"

WHEN the Rt. Hon. W. M. Hughes Minister for External Affairs, reach ed Rabaul, on June 1, he made a statement about the future of the Man dated Territory which caused a general furore.

One must remember the circumstan ces and the historical background. Mr.

Hughes was Australia’s great, war-time Prime Minister, and it was he who, at Versailles in 1919, obtained the New Guinea Mandate for Australia. Recently, there has been much talk about the pos sibility of the return of New Guinea to Germany, to which Mr. Hughes could not have been indifferent; and, at Port Moresby, he found the German Consul- General in Australia, Dr. Asmis, engag ed in a leisurely and very friendly tour of Papua.

So, when he got to Rabaul, Mr. Hughes —to the delight of all people who like to find some backbone in their political leaders —just “let go”. At any rate, this was indicated by press reports.

There was a formal welcome to the Minister on the Rabaul aerodrome. Sir Walter McNicoll (Administrator) refer red to the fact that it was Mr. Hughes who was responsible for the control of the Territory by Australia, and therefore they were glad to greet him as a pass enger on the first official air-mail.

Mr. Hughes described, in his usual graphic and amusing way, some of the difficulties he had encountered 20 years ago in obtaining the Mandate for Aus tralia. Then, according to the “Rabaul Times” report, he proceeded as follows:

‘‘Well, anyway, we got our Mandate and on this rock we have built our church and all hell is not going to take ft away.

This Territory has a great future”, said Mr. Hughes in conclusion, “and what we have we shall hold. Some people down below ask what will happen if they took the Mandate away from us. I say; No thing would happen”.

This was the report that was radioed to Australian newspapers, and repeated in press reports throughout the world.

The declaration caused a merry stir in Canberra. Mischief-makers decided that Mr. Hughes had caused “most seri ous embarrassment” to the Australian Government; and some excited news papers even announced that his resigna tion from the Ministry had been called for.

The storm died down, after a day or two. There is reason to suppose that the Prime Minister asked Mr. Hughes what he said, and why he said it; and that Mr. Hughes replied that he would be back in Sydney on June 12 and he then would be available for discussions.

The majority of Australians thanked their gods that they had at least one leader who was not dominated by the “hush, hush” policy of Mr. Lyons.

Their pleasure was short-lived.

When Mr. Hughes arrived in Sydney on June 12 he repudiated the Rabaul re port of his speech, in this fashion:— “Apparently words that I used in re ferring to the mainland of Australia were applied to the Territory of New Guinea.

What I said in relation to the Territory of New Guinea was that the Mandate was given to us by the League of Na tions to govern the Territory in the in terests of the natives, whose country it was. I said that we had governed it in the best interests of the natives, and that all the powers of Hell had not prevailed against this”.

One is bound to say, with all respect to Mr. Hughes, that his repudiation and explanation are unconvincing. They do

not in any way fit into the structure of his Rabaul speech.

“S.Ivlh.” On W.M.H.

This was the view taken by “Sydney Morning Herald”, which dealt rather scathingly with the incident in a leading article on June 13:— “At least, if Mr. Hughes did not say this, the language does no injustice to his forcible and picturesque style. And if he did say it, or something very like it, it is still difficult to see what all the pother at Canberra is about. Granted that phrases uttered under the shadow of Matupi may sound a trifle tropical amid the chill conventionality of Can berra, the sentiment attributed to Mr.

Hughes is not likely to be repudiated by Australians generally; and the agitated and distressmgly obvious attempts to water them down may accentuate rather than correct any mischief that may have been done”.

The newspaper goes on to show that Mr. Hughes’s speech, as originally report ed, was quite consistent with two or three other official pronouncements on the same subject, in recent years. “What we had in 1936 we were determined to hold”, says “SJVL Herald”. “Are we less determined in 1938, or is it merely that our statesmen, with one impenitent ex ception, have grown more mealy-mouth ed .. . Whether Mr. Hughes said it or not, it is largely true that whoever holds New Guinea commands Australia.

Not territorial greed but the instinct of self-preservation bids us cling to the outer ring of our defences”.

And so we are back where we were.

The future of New Guinea, it would seem, remains upon the knees of the international high gods.

Future Of New Guinea And

Samoa

As a matter of fact, there need be no agitation about the future of New Guinea and Samoa, so far as Germany is con cerned. Germany wants territory: but, according to the best information avail able, the Pacific Islands are too small and too far away to be interesting. We have consistently expressed this opinion, and it is supported by a letter just re ceived from a German, in touch with German public opinion. “Germany does not want Samoa or New Guinea”, he says.

Major C. B. Joske, of Suva, who led the Fiji contingent to England to take part in the Coronation Ceremonies, arrived in New York on May 23 by the

“Queen Mary”, en route to Fiji.

Mrs. A. M. Logan and her two child ren left Sydney for Port Moresby, Papua, by the June “Macdhui”. Mrs.

Logan is the wife of the Inspector of

Constabulary in Papua.

Rev. and Mrs. R. Rankin passed

through Sydney early in June after

spending long furlough in England. Mr.

Rankin is engaged in mission work fo

the London Missionary Society at Faroa,

Papua.

Mr. R. A. Robinson, Burns, Philp .plantation inspector, left Sydney for Tulagi, 8.5.1., by the “Malaita” on June 11.

Mr. T. G. Gould, formerly in legal practice at Nadi, Fiji, has been appointed to a post in the Colonial Legal Service of Hong Kong. He left Suva by the May “Monterey”.