NAURU MANDATE.

Taranaki Daily News, 2 August 1920, Page 5

NAURU MANDATE.

LORD MILNER EXPLAINS. By Telegraph.—Press Assn.—Copyright. London, July 30. Lord" Milner, in the House of Lords, in moving the second reading of the Nauru Island Bill, was asked by Lord Emmott ,wliy Canada, India! and Africa were debarred from getting deposits, adding that the policy was contrary to the "open door." Lord Milner replied that Australia, New Zealand and South Africa at the outset strongly opposed the mandating of territories in their immediate neighborhood, but stated that, if the Allies were concerned only with the proper treatment of the natives, they were cjuite willing to accept the mandate for Nauru Island and South-West Africa. They were deliberately handed over to the ! mandatories with provisions clearly drawn that tlheir sovereignty was unlimited, except regarding the protection of natives. Lord Milner declared that the question as regards Nauru Island would never have arisen if a.difference had not existed between Australia and New Zealand regarding which should 'be the mandatory. Received August 1, 5.5 p.m. jjondon, July 30. Lord Milner added that it was mainly, in the first instance, to act as mediator between Australia and New Zealand, in consequence of the difference, mentioned, that Britain came into the matter as a third party, and the mandate was nominally given to the British Empire. It was really intended from the first to be the mandate of those Powers which happened to be those portions of the Empire wliicb alon? were more or less contiguous to Nauru, and almost exclusively interested in its trade. Three Britisfh States were merely partners in 'this, particular mandate, which, in that respect, stood alone amopg all the mandates. They were partners under conditions expressing the Peace Conference's well considered intentions. The Bill was read a second time.—Reuter Service.