PACIFIC MANDATES.

Taranaki Daily News, 6 September 1922, Page 5

PACIFIC MANDATES.

CRITICISM BY LEAGUE, OBJECT OF THE REPORT. TO AROUSE INTEREST, By Telegraph.—Press Assn.—Copyright. Received Sept. 5, 5.5 p.m. London, Sept. 4. The Australian Press Association’s Geneva correspondent states the chairman of the council of the League of Nations submitted a report prepared by the secretariat embodying the substance of various reports and other documents relating to the administration of the mandated territories, including Nauru and New Guinea, together with the chairman’s observations on them. Had the council adopted them it would have meant the adoption of the commission’s criticisms and the chairman’s conclusions accepting and emphasising the criticisms which Lord Balfour’s intervention prevented. The report will now be presented to the assembly without the council ratification or disapproval. The reoort acknowledges the receipt of commentaries by Sir Joseph Cook (High Commissioner for Australia) in reference to Nauru and matters under reference by the Japanese, both replying to the Mandatory Commission’s criticisms at the Geneva meeting in August, but does not quote or even indicate their nature. Referring to [ unemployment among indentured labor in the mandated territories of the Pacific, the report endorses the Mandatory Commis- | sion’s opinions expressed at the Geneva meeting and concurs with the recommendations requiring more complete information in that connection in future. The report also demanded further information defining the exact status of Nauru. The chairman’s report continues: “The reports of the debates to which the situation in Nauru has given rise in 1922 excited general interest. The council desire to associate themselves with the hope expressed by the Mandatory Commission that subsequent information will clear up points which still seem obscure and definitely allay the anxiety which has been shown.” Lord Balfour said he was not prepared to adopt the criticism of the administration of the mandated territories by any part of the British Empire, because he had not had an opportunity of seeing the evidence on which the criticism was founded or rebutting the evidence. The chairman explained that the object of the report was to draw the attention of the mandatory Powers to certain matters. Lord Balfour replied that if the comment was confined to drawing attention he would not object to receive the report, but he made it clear that he declined to be associated with a judgment which he had not had an opportunity of investigating, particularly if it implied any criticism in reference to any part of the British Empire. The chairman replied that the council was not associated with the criticism, and merely passed it on to the assembly. Lord Balfour thereupon withdrew his opposition, and the report was adopted.— Aus.-N.Z. Cable Assn. THE MANDATES REPORT. Received Sept. 5, 5.5 p.m. London, Sept. 4. The Australian Press Association’s Geneva correspondent states the mandates report was prepared on behalf of the council by the Marquis Imperialdi, who submitted it to the council.