Arizona republican., 1919-03-28
PREMIER HUGHES
 AT TRACKS RAC|AI.
 CLAUSE BITTERLY
If It Means Nothing Why Insert It?" He Asks - Compares Australians With Californians - Would Not Sign Covenant
 With Any Such Provision

PARIS. March 27.-(By The Asso- ciated Press)-William G. Hughes, the premier of Australia, made the flat statement to The Associated Press to- day that he was unalterably in oppo sition to the proposed Japanese racial equality amendment to the covenant of the league of nations, or to any form of it, however mild, in recognizing that principle.
 Australia" MT. Hughes said, can not accept this proposal, which strikes at the very roots of the policy that we have maintained so long, which is vital to our existence and which we have guarded as zealously as has America her Monroe doctrine.
 q am not anxious to avoid anything likely to hurt the susceptibilities of the people of other nations, but on this point since we cannot give way, it is best that l should speak plainly. We cannot agree to the insertion of any words in the covenant or in the treaty of peace that would impair, or even question, our sovereign fights in re- gard to any and every aspect of this question.
 "One of the cardinal principles of the
 
 ference in the internal affairs of any nation. No nation will surrender it's sovereignty in matters essential to it's welfare to enter the league.
 Would Impair Sovereignty
 q cannot but regard the proposed amendment as an effort to establish a principle under which ultimately some nations would find their internal policy rh fxyf 1r, tion of one of it's members. The amend ment is one which, no matter how in ocuous it may seem in form, is certainly aimed at giving the league control of questions relating to immigration, naturalization and matters which can not be surrendered by any state, with out such impairment of it's sovereignty as to make it, in effect, a subject state 'If the league is able to compel state to amend it's immigration. natur- alization and franchise laws, there re- mains to the state only the shadow of sovereignty. The substance has gone No free nation could agree to dictation in such matters from the league of na- tions. Internal problems must remain under the control of individual nations of course, we are told by those who advocate this amendment that nothing
 
 milton of the principle. They say that no action is contemplated. I am afraid that this assurance will not reconcile the people of Australia to the proposal It certainly does not satisfy me.
 Means Something or Nothing
 'The proposal means something, or nothing. If nothing, then why insert it? If something, then surely this some will ha hxr words stopping for all time short of action. If these words, which it is de- sired to insert in the covenant, mean nothing. then the covenant itself means nothing.
 But hope and believe that the cov- enant, so far as it is, or will be, the means of extending the rule of law into the sphere of national dispute, means a great deal; that it contemplates and provides for action, so do all other legal documents, municipal and internation- al. Believing this, l cannot accept the suggestion that the amendment pro- posed means nothing and differs in es- sence from the other provisions of the pact.
 The people of Australia feel very keenly on this matter. We feel, i'm agine, as your people of California do
 
 the sentiment of America, but my ob- servations have led me to the beliet that the Pacific coast would be as much opposed to this amendment as would the citizens of Australia.
 Without committing myself to the draft of the league of nations, which Of course has not yet been discussed by the conference and which I hope and believe will be amended in certain directions, l have no hesitation in de- claring myself in favor of the attempt to substitute the rule of law and right for that of force. I feel sure, however that Australia could not sign the cove nant if it contained any such amend. ment as is proposed. Words matte, little. The amendment will be unac. ceptable no matter how drafted. fol it strikes at the root of a policy vita, to the existence and ideals of Australia and it cannot be agreed to-"