The The Southland Times PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. Luceo Non Uro. MONDAY, JUNE 21, 1920. THE NAURU DEBATE.

Southland Times, Issue 18854, 21 June 1920, Page 4

The The Southland Times PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. Luceo Non Uro. MONDAY, JUNE 21, 1920. THE NAURU DEBATE.

There is no room for discussion on the contention that a mandatory power under the League of Nations is not invested with the privilege of establishing a trade monoply in the territory placed under its control. The opposition to the Imperial Government in the Nauru debate was on firm ground when it advanced this argument, but it is not quite clear that the position at Nauru will be as terrible as they suggest. If the mandatory government or governments had not acquired the phosphate deposits there, it is extremely probable that no other concern would have had an opportunity of establishing itself on the island in competition. The company would have been entitled to dispose of its goods when and how it liked. It could have elected to sell its phosphates to one country and to one alone, and it is doubtful if the League of Nations would have had any power to interfere. In point of fact the mandatory power has acquired the company’s rights and it may be argued that it has purchased at the same time the privilege of selling the phosphates in any market it chooses io select. The important thing to be remembered is that the League of Nations did not deal with the private property of the company that controlled the phosphate in Nauru and it is extremely doubtful, therefore, if it can intervene. In any case as Mr Balfour pointed out there could be no harm in agreeing to the transfer of the company’s rights to the British Empire, though in that statement he raised the question of the rights of the other units of the Empire. The Imperial Government can hardly become a party to the granting of trade benefits to three countries of the Empire, to the exclusion of others. Probably the other units will offer no objections, but their right to claim a share in the benefits of the Nauru deposits is indisputable. It can be argued, however, that the various parts of the Empire were represented at the discussions of these matters in Paris prior to the signing of the Treaty and we are entitled to say that they have consented to the arrangement which divides the Nauru phosphate between New Zealand, Australia and the Mother Country. Mr Bonar Law seems to have clinched the matter fairly in his contribution to the debate by asking the House of Commons to give its consent to the agreement and to allow the League of Nations to test its propriety if it thought fit to do so. The course he suggested was undoubtedly the best and the House was wise in deciding to follow it. Nauru is a subject of great interest for us, and it is to be hoped that we are kept fully informed regarding the progress of events under the mandate.