PACIFIC MANDATES.

Taranaki Daily News, 11 August 1922, Page 5

PACIFIC MANDATES.

CONTROL OF NAURU. ALLEGATIONS RESENTED. PROTEST AT REPORT, By Telegraph.—Press Assn.—Copyrigb' . Received August 10, 5.5 p.m. London, Augu?* 9. Sir James Allen, interviewed, sa*u the first knowledge he had of the Mandatory Commission’s report was when he read it at the public session of the League of Nations Conference. He was glad he was able to pay a tribute to Sir Joseph Cook’s splendidly vigorous defence. He completely refuted the commission’s unfounded hints and insinuations, which were all the more offensive because they were expressed in the form of innuendo instead of being stated frankly as specific charges. Sir James Alien was able to back up Sir Joseph Cook more effectively because New Zealand, while interested in Nauru, was not responsible for its administration. He resented the suggestion that the welfare of the Nauru natives was •being prejudiced and the island exploited for profit by Australia. Such allegations were indefensible, unless they were made on definite evidence, which the authors of the report did not produce. They did not even suggest that evidence existed. Neither the Australian nor the New Zealand Governments would dream of attempting such exploitation as the report insinuated, and even if the Governments did the Parliaments would not. He deeply regretted Mr. Ormsby Gore’s attitude. He was the sole representative of the British Empire, and as such represented not only Britain but Australia and New Zealand. The allegations were against Australia, which was Britain’s mandatory over Nauru. Received August 10. 5.5 p.m. London, August 9. Sir Joseph Cook prefers to say nothing regarding the Nauru agreement at present, beyond calling attention to the fact that Mr. Ormsby Gore opposed the Mandatory Bill in the House of Commons on June 16, 1920, yet now he represents the British Empire on the Mandatory Commission.

CONTROL OF NAURU. ’ MORE INFORMATION WANTED. London, August 9. The report on the Nauru mandate adds: “The commission, moreover, is concerned by the question whether Australia as a mandatory Power, by reserving the ownership and exclusive exploitation of the resources of Nauru to itself, has brought itself into true harmony with the requirements of the mandates which, in accordance with the covenant, it should exercise on behalf of the League of Nations/’ The commission decided, however, merely to request Australia to furnish fuller information with regard to its administration and to inform the Council of the League of Nations of the apprehensions and scruples aroused by the facts to which the commission has drawn attention.' PROHIBITION IN SAMOA. COMMENT BY COMMISSION. Geneva, August 9. A passage in the report of the Mandates Commission says: “The commissioners note with satisfaction that New Zealand has expressly forbidden alcohol in Western Samoa. The commission was deeply impressed by Sir James Alien’s statement that experience had shown that the only method •for suppressing liquor consumption among the natives was to compel all nationals in the territory to set the example of total abstinence.” The commission drew attention to the significant fact that, while prohibition was enforced in New Guinea and SouthWest. Africa, in the islands placed under the Japanese exemptions were allowed by the administration. The commission requested information regarding the extent of exemptions. The commission also condemned the recruiting of male Chinese labor for Nauru as calculated to raise serious problems.