(Due to arrive Canberra 19.7.29)

My dear P.M.,

The result of the General Election here is well summed up by the
Philadelphia Public Ledger-'The Election represents not so much a
victory for the Labour Party as a crushing defeat for the
Conservatives'.

Professor Smiddy lunched with me this week. He was I.F.S. Minister
at Washington and is now High Commissioner here. He is an
attractive Irish type and talks freely. He admits that an the
score of work to be done there is little justification for an
I.F.S. Legation at Washington, but it was created, as he says, in
order to get diplomatic recognition for the I.F.S. by the great
American nation, which meant a lot to them, both at home and
abroad, in the early days of the Free State. The same desire for
recognition for themselves as a nation has prompted the creation
of Irish Legations at Paris, Berlin and the Vatican.

He has just been back to Dublin on a board of selection for
recruits to the Diplomatic Service, for which they had 14
applicants and picked 3 young men. He tells me that they are
stipulating qualifications roughly similar to our own-a University
degree, etc., but they leave themselves open to disregard the
academic qualifications should applicants be particularly suitable
in other directions. They lay great stress on suitable personality
and applicants being what is recognised as of the right type.

I said that this Diplomatic Service must be going to cost them a
great deal, and he said that unfortunately they were doing it 'on
the cheap' and that each post (other than Washington) would cost a
total of less than �5,000 a year. They would consist of a
Minister, a Secretary and a female clerk. He deplores this economy
because, as he says, they will not be able to maintain the
standing of other diplomatic missions, and as, particularly in
their case, the Ministers will not have a great deal to do, but
will have to justify themselves by creating an impression, they
are handicapped from the start.

The I.F.S. are going to establish, I think, two consular posts in
the United States, in New York and Boston.

I send in another letter by this mail copy of I.F.S. debate (5th
June) on the estimates for their External Affairs Department. It
is worth your looking through McGilligan's speech (Minister for
External Affairs), which concerns itself with making a case for
their diplomatic costs abroad, for increased expenditure on
External Affairs, and with the 'national status' of the I.F.S.

If, as I hope, you find time to read his speech, you will notice
that he says:-

London, Washington, Berlin, Paris, Geneva and the Vatican are the
great nodal points of the life of nations. Representation at these
centres is the very minimum which any country with a State
existence should secure. We hope, of course, to extend our
representation at a somewhat later date to Canada and some other
of our sister nations in the Commonwealth. We are in constant
touch with these nations by correspondence, but it is felt that
the method of personal contact will become more and more a normal
requirement as our relations increase.

There is nothing much to tell you about the activities of the new
Government as yet. Ramsay MacDonald [1] has been away for ten
days, returning tomorrow for Cabinet.

MacDonald and Dawes [2] did a sort of circus entertainment about
Anglo-American Reparations and Naval Disarmament, to the
accompaniment of suitable-or unsuitable-publicity. They met at the
house of MacDonald's great friend (Sir Archibald Grant, Bart.),
the biscuit manufacturer, in Scotland, and subsequently both made
speeches, which have not advanced the subject at all in people's
minds, as they contained nothing new and were far from lucid.

Dawes made the Pilgrims' dinner the occasion for his speech, which
he read very quickly from a typed document, and which has failed
to impress people at all.

He 'featured' the 'yardstick', by which he meant the formula which
is to correlate big and small cruisers. Apparently each nation is
to be asked to produce its proposals for a 'yardstick', and then
the six or so 'yardsticks' are to be correlated-an unenviable job.

None of the Departments that I have encountered are very happy
about their new Ministers, but I expect they will get used to
things.

People here are fairly sure, from the published indications, that
Hoover [3] does not intend to press consideration of the subject
of Belligerent Rights-and has very rightly decided that naval
limitation must come first.

I hear that the new Government intend to discuss the question of
relations with Russia at an early date.

I enclose 'Times' leader (20th June) attacking Ramsay MacDonald
for an injudicious press article.

I note the letter you sent me from Dow [4] in New York with regard
to Wilkins. [5] This does not give me much pause. Dow knows only a
part of the story. I have never thought Wilkins was a very
thorough or inspired scientific man, but his usefulness lies in
the fact that he has the initiative and courage to open up new
areas and do a little rough but useful scientific work which gives
the lead to the more scientific but less hardy individuals who
follow in his footsteps. He is the tin-opener. In his Antarctic
work I would almost disregard the scientific side and look on him
merely as an individual who can do a good deal to keep our end up
in the way of straight discovery.

As regards his connection with the Hearst Press, I do not blame
him in the least. He has never been able to raise money in
Australia and until this last month he has never been able to
raise money here. The Americans came at him with their purses open
and did not impose conditions-other than that he should write a
good deal of rather monotonous rubbish for their papers.

I am delighted that our efforts to help Wilkins with the Discovery
Committee have been successful-and (as I report in another letter
[6]) he is getting �10,000 and the use of the small ship 'William
Scoresby' from the Discovery Committee.

According to your instructions, no commitments are being made at
this end in respect of our Antarctic Expedition for more than a
single season's exploration. This applies to the Charter Party,
Press Contracts, Insurance, Publicity, etc. As you know, I feel
most strongly that the work of consolidating our claims cannot be
done in one season's work. I could expand to you for many pages on
this point, but my constant endeavour is to compress my remarks in
these personal letters so as not to weary you.

I can imagine that you have no other motive than economy behind
your desire not to be committed to more than one season. This I
can appreciate-and if lack of funds stops the activities at the
end of one season, then there is no more to be said-much as I
would deplore it.

But after many talks to Davis [7], I gather that there is every
chance (in this as in every other Antarctic Expedition) of the
Expedition's breaking down after one season's work owing to
internal dissension. Conditions of life on the 'Discovery',
although possibly better than a number of previous expeditions,
will be hideously cramped and uncomfortable and, for the greater
part of the time, wearisome. Mawson, although he has many
qualities, is incapable of producing any organisation or of
tactfully keeping people contented and interested. Davis predicts,
and I think with some reason, that although the Expedition will in
all probability produce quite considerable results during one
season, there will be a general disinclination on the part of the
members to embark on a second season's work.

If, as I hope, the results of the first year's work encourage you
to authorise a second season, then I think it would be a good plan
for you to talk to Sir David Masson [8] and ask him to bear in
mind, even at this early stage, the possibility of his having to
replace a large number of the personnel for the work of a possible
second season. If he has individuals marked down in his mind in
this way, there need not be any great break in continuity of the
work.

The accident to the Imperial Airways machine in the Channel [9]
has preoccupied their General Manager and he has asked me to
postpone temporarily the discussion with him of the details of the
proposed Australia-Singapore service, but I will pursue it as soon
as possible.

The accident is deplorable but will do good as it will, I hope,
force Imperial Airways to write off all the old two-engined
Handley Pages-which I have personally refused to travel in for the
last two years. It will also, I hope, have the result of
tightening up the regulations about flying over the Channel at
comparatively low altitudes. The London-Paris route is not a very
safe one and I have always maintained that it should be flown at
6,000 instead of 2,000 feet. I have done it about 20 times now in
various weather conditions, and have been considerably scared at
times, mostly by low flying.

I gather from Officer [10] that he has no option but to get out of
the External Affairs Department. I know from your telegram that
you have done whatever was possible. I am particularly sorry, both
on personal grounds and because I feel that the work and
effectiveness of the Department will suffer.

I enclose 'Times' report (14th June) of Lloyd George's Liberal
Party's policy, which is a pretty low-down effort. [11]

I enclose, as a matter of interest, 'Times' report of Lord
Hewart's [12] address on Modern Oratory.

I am, Yours sincerely,
R.G. CASEY

P.S. I enclose an interesting leading article on the Gold Standard
from the 'Financial Times' of 17th June.