Canada and the Treaty Power-American-Japanese Friendship- German Industrialism versus the State The Russian Theatrical Invasion Relations of Poets and Musicians-'The Machine-Wreckers' THE LIVING VOLUME 317-NUMBER 4110 APRIL 14, 1923 A WEEK OF THE WORLD CANADA AND THE TREATY POWER THE importance of the independent step taken in the field of diplomacy is freely acknowledged in Great Britain. The Telegraph of March 13 says, in regard to the apparent clash between theory and fact: "The separate conclusion by the Canadian Government of a treaty with the Government of the United States has been rightly hailed in Canada as an important constitutional event. For many years past, commercial arrangements between the Dominions and Foreign Powers have been negotiated by Dominion plenipotentiaries instead of, as in old days, by the representatives of the British Foreign Office. Hitherto, however, it has been customary for the Imperial Government to be associated with that of the Dominion in the actual signature of the document. Thus the Trade Agreement between Canada and France in 1921 was signed by Lord Hardinge, then British Ambassador at Paris, as well as by Sir George Foster, the Canadian representative. 1905-7, the fishery question belongs to the political rather than to the commercial field. And, secondly, this treaty has not only been negotiated by the Dominion representatives alone, but also signed by them alone. This fact has not been unobserved by students of inter-Imperial relations in this country; and the Prime Minister was questioned on it in the House of Commons last Thursday. "The question, however, and, consequently, the reply, missed the essential constitutional point. The Canadian Minister signed the Treaty, said Mr. Bonar Law, "on behalf of the King, by whom his full powers are issued." 'Of course; but on whose advice? Was the King advised to empower his representative by his Canadian or by his British Ministers? If the latter, the British Government was doubtless acting, on a request from Ottawa, as a virtually automatic intermediary. But, pending further information, we presume that the former procedure was adopted; for it was the Canadian Prime Minister who took the lead at the Paris Conference in insisting that, in concluding the Treaty of Versailles, the Dominion representatives should separately and directly advise the King to issue to them their separate authorities to sign. And though this recent treaty, Copyright 1923, by the Living Age Co. 'But the circumstances of this new treaty are quite different. First, it is not a commercial agreement - not merely a matter of trade and tariffs. As the alarming little crisis over the Newfoundland Fisheries showed in unlike that of Versailles, concerns Canada alone, it seems more than probable that the Canadian Government has confirmed the precedent set in 1919. 'If this be so, and if the precedent has thereby been firmly established, a new and very important element has been introduced into the constitutional custom of the British Commonwealth. The Dominions have obtained the Treaty Power-a separate power, a separate power, exercised directly by themselves, without even the formal interposition of the Imperial Government. No doubt this follows inevitably from the principle of equal nationhood. It was on that ground, indeed, that Sir Robert Borden claimed that separate powers should be taken by the Dominions at Versailles; and it was on that ground that the British Government readily conceded his claim. 'Everyone in this country has unreservedly accepted the principle of equal nationhood; but it is essential for the future destiny of the Commonwealth that all its statesmen should take careful note of how the principle operates in practice. Thus it is worth remembering that in legal theory, unquestioned in pre-war days, the Crown could only conclude treaties on the advice of one Government the Imperial Government; and that, if the Treaty Power were exercised by more than one Government, the British Commonwealth would no longer be regarded as one body politic in any real sense. 'Legal theory is, presumably, still the same. Legal theory could doubtless demonstrate that, unless the constitutional position of the Crown is to be revolutionized, it cannot act as a valid coördinating link between distinct and conceivably discordant foreign policies. But, for good or ill, the British peoples have never enslaved their political life to legal theory. And, however odd and awkward some of the practical results of the principle of equal nationhood may seem, the fact remains that all the British peoples are determined to maintain the unity of the Commonwealth and will do nothing willingly to destroy it. "The difficulty of maintaining it will arise if ever the Imperial Government declines to support the enforcement of some treaty concluded by a British Dominion - a position of detachment constantly claimed by the Dominions for themselves, and therefore presumably conceded when it operates against them. For this reason the new development and there have been others since the war— makes it more desirable than ever that the whole problem of inter-Imperial relations should be reviewed, and that the special meeting for that purpose, which the first Imperial War Conference resolved in 1917 to hold directly after the war, should not be indefinitely delayed. And meanwhile it affords one more reason for maintaining the closest and most continuous consultation between this country and the Dominions over the whole field of foreign policy.' AMERICAN-JAPANESE FRIENDSHIP In an editorial dated February 10 the Tokyo Liberal daily Hochi reads us a lecture on immigration and the Gentlemen's Agreement: "The Japanese Government explains that American sentiment toward Japan has become much friendlier since the Washington Conference, but is this true? It is probable that it has gradually grown upon the American mind that Japan has not territorial designs upon China or Siberia, but nevertheless anti-Japanese movements in America continue as vigorously as ever. Nay, such movements, formerly confined to the states bordering on the Pacific, have gradually spread to other western states, and it is now reported that no less than eleven states have enacted laws of an anti-Japanese character. The Japanese naturalization question, which has been outstanding for many years, has been settled against the Japanese, the American Supreme Court, in giving the final decision last November, denying the right to the Japanese. This decision, we regret to say, was evidently based on racial prejudice. "The new Immigration Limitation Bill, which was recently approved by the Immigration Committee of the House of Representatives, we must also say aims chiefly at the exclusion of Japanese immigrants. In the face of these glaring examples of antiJapanism, it would be difficult to say that American sentiment towards Japan has improved in any way. 'In as much as the Gentlemen's Agreement is most faithfully observed by Japan, the passage of the new bill for the limitation of immigrants would make no material difference to Japan; but the fact that such legislation is actually contemplated — in defiance of Japan's faithful observance of the Gentlemen's Agreement without first consulting this country is intolerable from the standpoint of national dignity. In this bill is clearly discernible the racial prejudice of Americans. While the immigration law now in force bases the percentage of alien immigrants admitted into America on the number of foreign residents in that country in 1910, the revised bill bases it on the number of foreign residents in 1890. This fact bears witness to American desire to reject immigrants from South European countries. In 1890 there were more immigrants from northern European countries than from southern European countries, and this is the reason why the new bill bases the cal culation on the number of foreign residents in that year. America desires to have immigrants of Anglo-Saxon and German races, not immigrants of the Latin race. This is an attitude hardly becoming to the Americans, who pose as apostles of justice and humanity, equality and philanthropy. This attitude is particularly regrettable as running counter to the spirit of permanent world-peace.' RESTORATION OF RUSSIAN FAMINE REGIONS THE MOSCOW Correspondent of Kölnische Zeitung says that the meteorological reports of many years prove that, in these regions, in each period of seven years there have been two rainless summers. The last were those of 1920 and 1921. The crop failure of 1920 was not noticed so much on account of important political events. The devastation incident to the civil war, added to this failure of the crops, brought this part of Russia, as is well known, to a state that actually touched upon cannibalism. The results of the famine were noticed in the abandoned villages and farms, the killing of domestic animals, the abandoned and neglected children, and a great increase in the number of idle workers throughout Russia. The whole task of restoration will take ten years to carry out. The inhabitants will be given every incentive to help themselves, but will be helped along in every possible way. The tax on grain in these devastated regions has been reduced to a minimum, and in many places not demanded at all. In the country east of the Volga the desolation reached its worst. Whole districts are as good as uninhabited. In the Bashkir region a quarter of the inhabitants starved to death. The danger from wolves had so increased that farmers were warned not to allow |