NATIONS’ RIGHTS

Sun (Auckland), Volume 1, Issue 3, 25 March 1927, Page 1

NATIONS’ RIGHTS

GENEVA ISSUES LEAGUE AND MANDATES SIR FRANCIS BELL’S REVIEW (Special to THE SUN.) WELLINGTON, To-day. "It is essential that Great Britain should never accept the principle that a court of foreigners might determine what are her belligerent rights at sea,” said Sir Francis Bell yesterday, when addressing the University Club, of -which he is a member. During the life of the Labour Government at Home Mr. Ramsay MacDonald had agreed, in conference with the French Prime Minister at Geneva, that the limitation clause imposed on the International Court of Justice should be abolished. Fortunately this proposal had been defeated and the limitation clause as to a nation's right to refuse to submit to matters of honour or vital interest to the court still stood. At Geneva Sir Francis had been vice-chairman of the committee appointed to consider the court when it made the American reservation that anything affecting the interest of the United States should not be put to the court without the consent of the United States. Some of the smaller nations had resented this, thinking that America sought to dominate the League of Nations of which it was not a member, and a reply had been sent as a result of which the United States Senate had told everyone to “go to blazes.” Personally, he had been very glad of this result, though he had thought the terms of communication discourteous. Everyone could see what a nuisance it would be if the United States could take Britain to the Court of Interna tional Justice. It affected New Zea land too. Friction Over Mandates New' Zealand was not entirely in agreement with the United States about Samoa. Americans in Western Samoa claimed the right to trade with Samoa at the same rate of duty as England and members of the League, hut America was not a member of the League and New Zealand had refused that. The Mandates Commission was largely composed of men who were not statesmen. Though they had a great appreciation of the importance of their work and a strong sense of duty they had never been able to realise that the governments were the mandatories and that all the commission had to do was to interpret 4 the mandates. Thus, at the last session, they had introduced the question of petitions at which M. Briand had exclaimed: "If we agree to this we shall have every Jew in Palestine petitioning also.” The Commission had drawn up a list of 202 questions covering even details of administration, some of w-hich had been very inconvenient. (Laughter.) Fortunately for 11s France had taken the question up, and at the council table M. Briand had riddled the proposals. The Man dates Commission was most sensitive and took offence very easily. Answering questions Sir Francis said it did not pay us to hold Samoa and it was of no real importance to us, while no government w'ould tolerate being required to answer a number of questions every year. Referring to the Balfour Commission’s report on the altered status °f the Dominions. Sir Francis remarked that all the commission had done was to find a formula which would he acceptable to Canada, Australia and New Zealand, but. it had not done this at the behest of any of those Dominions. The new state of affairs would not endanger the Empire. It made separation easier, of course, and made serious differences possible bv opening the way for appointment by Dominions of ambassadors to foreign countries. He believed that it would he the greatest influence for good in future. It would be impossible for any representative of the Dominions to s ay that they had not had the fullest Possible consideration and satisfac tiou.