Some time ago Mr. Sanivara Sastri, an eminent Indian jurist, who represented India at the Imperial (London) and Washington conferences, visited Australia at the invitation of the Government and spent some time touring the several States, making speeches and gen—erally being very well treated. He professed to have one chief object in view, namely, that Indians already resident in Australia should be entitled to old age pensions and should have the franchise. The "Sydney Bulletin,' a not uninfluential weekly paper, attacked Mr. Sastri by arguing that what he asked for in Australia, might be a mere flea-bite, but when he went abroad he would use Australia's concessions as a lever in other parts of the Empire where such concessions would mean a great deal. This was roughly the line of thought. We are now learning things. Mr. Sastri has gone across to Canada, where he is not having too good a time. He is quoting a personal letter written to him by the Australian Prime Minister some time while he was in Australia. That letter said that there was a chance of Indians resident in Australia getting the old age pensions, but be must get the leaders of the Labour and Country Parties on his side before he could hope that the Government would lead in the matter of giving Indians the franchise.
Mr. Hughes is now being violently attacked on the ground that he is secking to introduce Indians into the country. It is, of course, an indefensible accusation, At one time, about 1909, the Labour Party was in favour of giving the pensions to all coloured people who had been in the country a certain length of time, but the proposition was rejected in Parliament. Today, the giving of such pensions is so trifling a matter as to be of no importance, but the granting the franchise would open up si With his favourite cry vista of bitter controversy.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.