LEAGUE OF NATIONS

Hokitika Guardian, 22 November 1920, Page 1

LEAGUE OF NATIONS

iausthlman & n.z. cable association! METHOD OF PROCEDURE. LONDON, Nov. 21. A number of the overseas delegates, who are accustomed to their own Parliamentary procedure, and are new to European methods, find themselves nonplussed at times by the League Assembly’s procedure in drafting provisional rules. They were made expressly elastic to meet, as far as possible, the difficulties. Bilingualism, with its attended sloping down of business, adds to the newcomers’ perplexities. The fact is that .the League Assembly partakes more oi tire nature of a conference than of a parliament ,and until the commission completes drafting a set of procedure riles, its emergence from a' congress condition into a proper parliamentary system cannot he expected. Already after two days’ experience the commissions are beginning to prove unwieldly. With a laudable desire to permit every nation to havo^ representation, these commissions have resulted in some having thirty members. V lengthening out of deliberations an.l overlappings lias also occurred, to such an extent that the Assembly .has decided that next week three commissi,i .s si all sit on three days, and the renr wider shall meet on the alternate da,\s The Sixth Commission has done practically nothing, beyond a general discussion on armaments. M ViViani, French delegate, states that these commissions possess insufficient definitions on which to proceedThe colonial representatives get somewhat restive at the slowness of the progress, hut the Assembly is such a new experiment that patience is required to enable it to get into its stride. ; It is stated American circles in Geneva are impressed by the importance ol: the Assembly. Some leading publicists declare the idea of the United States starting a counter League would be futile, in the presence of forty nations assembled in Geneva. It would be wiser for the United States to join this League and assist in moulding its constitution. ' Mr Rowell (Canada) resumed the debate on the Council’s (Big Five) report. He said the success of the League depended on the personnel of the Council and the Assembly. Unless the nations sent their best men, the result would be unsatisfactory. The League must justify itself by achievements. He asked whether the Council was composed of a kind of “elder statesmen,” or did it re. present only certain Powers named in the Covenant? He believed that it occupied the latter position. He believed that it submits merely the policy of these leading Powers to the other nations who are not represented on the Council. “Unless the Council gives leader- - ship,” lie declared, “it must-fail. If any representative on it cannot speak; absolutely for his country, then he has. no right to be there. The Council' should lie prepared to back up its de--cisions In such disputes as that between Poland and Lithuania by invoking its: eccnomie powers.” .He recognised the difficulties arising out of centuries of conflict and racial animosities. Canadians, he said, had slied their blood to: destroy militarism. The League' was the most hopeful experiment devised by man to save the world. HOSTILITY TO GERMANY. j PARIS, November 20. “Lo Matin’s” Goneva correspondent says that in the event of a vote it is probable that only Norway, Holland and the Argentine will support Ger-. many’s admission to the League, as over thirty nations support France’s