MANDATE OVER SAMOA.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLIV, Issue 2484, 23 September 1922, Page 4

MANDATE OVER SAMOA.

INTERFERENCE RESENTED. STATEMENT BY SIR F. D. BELL. LONDON, Sept. 19., The Australian Press Association's Geneva correspondent states that Sir I'. Dillon Bell, on behalf of the New Zealand Government, denied the right of the Mandates Commission to interpret for New Zealand the meaning of her covenant or to dictate to her the procedure for carrying out her mandates. —A. and N.Z. cable. GENEVA, Sept. 19. Something like a sensation was created by Sir F. Dillon Bell’s denial of the right of the Permanent Mandates Commission to interpret for New Zealand the meaning of the covenant under which she exercises her mandate over Samoa, or to dictate the procedure New Zealand should adopt ill carrying out her duties. The declaration was made when the committee presented its report of the Permanent .Mandates Commission, which has been amended in certain important, particulars, with the concurrence of the Australian, and New Zealand delegates. Neither side takes exception to the report in its new form, but there was some plain speaking both in defence of the Permanent Mandates Commission and in criticism of its methods. Dr Nansen moved ‘the adoption of the report. He thanked the mandatory powers for the way they carried out their work. On the other hand, he said the duties of the Mandates Commission were not always pleasant. If it was always complimentary, it would not be of much use. It must he critical when criticism was necessary. SWEDISH DELEGATE’S VIEW. ' Madame Anna Wicksell, a Swedish member of the Mandates Commission, blamed the Australian Governent for not furnishing fuller information in the first instance instead of leaving it to be dragged out ot the High Commissioner at the last moment. The Mandates Commission had received the High Commissioners comments only after its own work was finished. Madame Wicksell added: ‘We fee it our duty to be watchful as we have to saleguard the interests of men and women who are not capable of defending themselves. We must look with their eyes and feel with their hearts, and sometimes thaneyes ancl hearts are suspicious. . , Sir F Dillon Bell followed. He paid a tribute to the Mandate Commissions care and impartiality, but he pointed out that New Zealand had a dual obligation, firstly, as member of tho League, and secondly as a mandatory. Defining the legal position, he said: “His Majesty, in the right of his Dominion of New Zealand lias accepted the mandate for Western Samoa. What His Majesty does in the right of his Dominion he does on the advice of his Ministers in that Dominion, not of tho Ministers of Britan, and the statement whch I present is one which the Government of New Zealand very respectfully, but very urgently, presents to this assembly. The New Zealand I arliainent legislates for Western Samoa, and the Administrator rules and administers these laws. New Zealand is under ail honourable obligation to legislate and administer in accordance with the terms and intentions of the covenant of the League ot Nations. “She is willing and anxious to receive suggestions and advice from either the Permanent Mandates Commission or the council of tho League, but cannot admit the commissions’ power to interpret for her the meaning of the covenant, or to dictate wliat procedure New Zealand should adopt in her endeavours to perform her duties under tho League.’’ OBJECTIONS TO PROCEDURE.. Sir F. Dillon Bell offered two objections to the present procedure. Firstly, the report of the Mandates Commission should be to -the council, not to the public. New Zealand had nothing to fear from investigation and courted the fullest inquiry, but New Zealanders did not court or. desire opinions upon their laws and administration from anybody other than the council or tho assembly. The council must necessarily require from its Mandates Commission the freest statement of its investigation, but if such a report were published, it could not fail to give offence to the mandatory legislature and government. His second objection was that as mandatory powers were not represented on either the council or the Mandates Commission, their delegates to the Assembly should have the right to require that the opinions and objections of tho Mandates Commission should be reported to the Assembly, where the mandatory powers possessed representation. , ■ SIY F. D. 801 l continued that the right of a mandatory power whose legislation or administration might be under consideration to appeal front adverse comment should be definitely established. “The mere right of audience,” he said, “is wholly insufficient. We require to govern and must govern to the best of our ability. We require to legislate and must legislate in accordance with tho careful exercise of our o\vn discretion.” —A. and N.Z. cable.