LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

Hokitika Guardian, 9 December 1920, Page 2

LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

I AUSTttALIAN & N.!5. CABLE ASSOCIATION A LENGTHY DEBATE. (Received This Day at 8.30 a.m.) GENEVA, December 8. Tho Assembly has received a report on technical organisations, the first dealing with economic financial matters which will carry on the work of the Brussels Conference; the second deals with communications and transit; ,the third with international health. Each body is to have a standing committee at The report recommends the immediate summoning of a conference at Barcelona, to which United States shall be invited. The draft scheme provides for the freedom of international transit. The report points out it/will be the duty of tbe health organisation to devise a more rapid inter change of information regarding treatment of epidemics, deal with sickness, and injury to workers arising from employment. The co-opera-tion of labour organisation and health committee are to meet in Paris annually Mr Rowell took exception to the principle . underlying these organisations, which sought to commit the states fo matters whereon they were never consulted. The people of Canada were not prepared to take over conditions which the European committee suggest he imposed, because Europeans did not understand their view point. Canada, much as she loved and respected Britain did not allow her to settle Canadian affairs, therefore how much less should we hand over questions contained in this report to European States. Who was it but European statesmen who drenched the world with blood. Fifty thousand lives was the cost Canada paid for European statesmanship. Mr Rowell said let Europeans deal with their own transit and health problems and let us see within a year what they could do with them. Mr Hanotaux hotly combatted Rowell’s remarks declaring Europe fought for the rest of tho world and humanity. Objected like Rowell’s should have been made at the time of thfc signing of the Covenant.

M. Millen strongly sympathised with Mr Rowell’s idea. These organisations would be utterly useless unless created by an -international covenant. M. Hanotaux was wrong in blaming the Covenant. There was nothing wrong with the Covenant, but it was the interpretation that was now sought to be placed on it that was wrong. He objected to any attempt to force the - Commission’s report upon the assembly. The latter must have the right of expressing even adverse criticism upon it, when it was shown we were asked to do something in direct conflict with, the Covenant. He thought they might create those organisations but would not find a single state to contribute to their upkeep. Article twenty three provided this. It was pointed out that Article six provided that expenses of the secretarist should he borne by the League. He warned the Assembly that members only were committed to expenses of the fieefrotarist. jit Would be an unfortunate thing for tbe League, if mem hers declined to contribute to the upkeep of organisations whereon they were not consulted. There might he members of the Assembly who were authorised to commit countries to th e heavy cost of such organisations, but he could not. ' *

Lord Cecil agreed with much of Mr Rowell’s opposition. He Thought the organistions should Lta experimental for a year until they could say how they worked. He supported Rowell, that, no, vote Iphould at present lie taken on the principle, until the rhatter was more fully considered. There should also be a conference between those who held views like Rowell and others who thought differently. Mr. Rowell subsequently withdrew a remark that might be considered to reflect on the statesmen of IRuropean countries. ,He had merely Wished to illustrate tho different view points and what threatened to be a warm debate, cooled down.

• No vote was taken and it 'was adjourned pending a conference between M. Ilanotaux, the Rapporteur Committee, Rowell, Millen and others.