The Press. Thursday, January 23, 1919. Germany and the Pacific.

Press, Volume LV, Issue 16428, 23 January 1919, Page 6

The Press. Thursday, January 23, 1919. Germany and the Pacific.

We are glad.to see that Mr Massey, immediately on his arrival in England, made it plain that New Zealand is as strong as ever in her objection to Germany being allowed to regain a footing in tiie Pacific. New Zealand's motto, as he very truly said, is "Never "again. No more Germans in' tho "Pacific." "VVe will go further and say that New Zealand and Australia will not be satisfied unless the possessions taken by tho British Navy and Dominion troops are allowed to remain ■under British control. "We do not at all agreo with the view of ex-President Taft, who, while admitting that Germany has forfeited all title to the colonies by her mistreatment of them, argues that these colonies must be

internationalised and placed under the control of the League of Nations. The usual rule in warfare is that the country which captures the colonies of an enemy is entitled to keep them. "Why should not that bo followed in this case? The only reason put forward by Mr Taft is his assertion that if the German colonies wero given to Britain ( or France suspicion, might arise that they were being exploited for selfish interests. There might be some force in this argument if it had been shown that the Powers named were in the habit of exploiting colonies for selfish interests, or that the natives would be better off tinder the control of the League of Nations than they would under the control of Great Britain or her chief Ally. Everyone knows that the very reverse is the case. Mr Massey said some time ago that the Dominions would object to dual control of any of the Pacific Islands. "We have seen the history of the condominium in the New Hebrides, and we believe the people of Australia

and Xew Zealand would willingly agree to our ally, France, taking full control of the New Hebrides so long as the rights of the British residents and the missionaries were properly safeguarded. We feel that we can trust France. But if dual control is bad, what is to be said of multiple control of Samoa, Now Guinea, and other 1 acific Islands, such as is now proposed ? The idea of tho League of Nations being entrusted with such administrative functions as the control and development of colonies is so preposterous that wo cannot understand a statesman of Mr Taft's experience allowing liis name to be linked to such an absurd and impracticable proposal. Wo can understand an inter-ocean canal, or a maritime highway like the Dardanelles being internationalised, and placed under the protection aud control of the League of Nations, although with curious inconsistency Mr Taft suggests that the Dardanelles, tbe Sea of Marmora, and the Bosphorus must be placed under the guardianship of some one Government representing the Allies. But how can a "League of Nations" look after a, young colony and nurse it into a state of fuller development as it ought to be nursed? Take Samoa for example. There is no question that tho natives would very much prefer to he under the protection of "Bilitania," whom they know, than under the control of halt-a-dozen Powers called " A League of Nations," whom they don t know. If German Samoa is put under the British flag, British capital will be invested in the group, the British Government will see that the natives are properly treated, and tho resources of tho islands will be developed, because it will be to the interests of a good many responsible people that development and progress shall take xilace. But who is to look after ail these things if the islands are left to a "League of Nations," with no organised department to carry out such work, with no trained officials and with practically nobody with any incentive to take ah interest in the group? So far as New Zealand is concerned we say frankly that wo do not consider that handing over the islands to the League of Nations will bo satisfactory from the point of view of our own defence. The whole thing is purely an experiment, and nobody knows what may happen in fifty years, or even twenty years hence. The League of Nations may break down at any time, and in all probability we should again have to struggle to capture the islands we now hold. We ought not to let them go.