The New York Times/1918/11/11/Australia's Stand Criticised by Cecil
AUSTRALIA'S STAND CRITICISED BY CECIL
British Minister Says Premier Hughes Interprets Wilson's Points Extravagantly.
JUSTICE AT PEACE TABLE
May Require Compensation for Both Private Losses and Public Expenditures.
Copyright, 1918, by The New York Times Company.
Special Cable to The New York Times.
LONDON, Nov. 9.—Premier W. M. Hughes of Australia took issue today with three of President Wilson's fourteen points. He complained to The New York Times correspondent that the dominion had not been consulted before they were accepted by the Allies as the peace basis.
In the first place, he objected to the President's third clause, which, he argued, limits the rights of States to adopt a differential tariff. This, he maintained, would be a limitation of Australia's sovereignty which she could not accept. She had been fighting for the rights of small nations, and as a small nation she wanted her own.
Then Hughes asked why no provision had been made for Germany's indemnifying the allies for the cost of the war. Australia's own war debt was £300,000,000, and he could not see why she should be burdened with it when Germany would have exacted the heaviest indemnities possible if she had been victorious.
Finally Hughes declared that the handing over of Germany's pacific colonies in the neighborhood of Australia to her ought to have been specified. He pointed out that New Guinea was only eighty miles from Queensland, and asked how Americans would like such an excellent base for U-boats, airplanes, or ships to be in the hands of Germans so near their own doors.
Lord Robert Cecil was asked by The New York Times correspondent this afternoon for his view of the criticisms passed by Premier Hughes of Australia on three of President Wilson's fourteen points. With regard to Premier Hughes's contention that the President's stipulation concerning economic treaties was an infringement of Australia's national rights, Lord Robert said:
"It seems to me a most extravagant interpretation of the President's words; but putting that aside, any treaty between two nations may be construed as an abridgment of their national rights. All that the President lays down may be regarded as a gigantic economic treaty."
Asked about Premier Hughes's contention that Germany should be required, in addition to making reparation to Australian citizens for private injuries received at the hands of the enemy, to foot the bill for Australia's national expenditure in the war, Lord Robert said:
"That will be a matter for the Peace Conference, and some estimates of the injuries done to private interests are enormous, but if I understand the plain meaning of English, the Peace Conference will be at liberty to require compensation for both private losses and public expenditure. The only thing explicitly rules out is the imposition of any punitive fine."
Referring to Premier Hughes's complaint that the disposition of Germany's colonies in the Southern Pacific had not been included in the bond, Lord Robert referred to recent speeches of Premier Lloyd George and Mr. Balfour, and said that they should be sufficient.