PACIFIC MANDATES.

Taranaki Daily News, 7 September 1922, Page 5

PACIFIC MANDATES.

I CONTROL OF NAURU, AUSTRALIA OR EMPIRE? POSITION CHALLENGED. By Telegraph.—Press Asen.—Copyright. Received Sept. 6, 8.50 p.ni. Geneva, Sept. 5. The council of the League of Nations has circulated the reports upon which the secretariat based the report adopted yesterday. The commission reiterates its conviction that Chinese laborers unaccompanied by their wives constitute a grave social danger to the native populations. A Chinese coolie under a three years’ contract and thousands of miles from home demands the greatest administrative care. The commission also challenges the validity of the Australian administration of Nauru, because the British mandates of this class were conferred on the King; but in all cases, except Nauru, it was expressly stated that the King acted on behalf of the Australian, South African or New Zealand Governments. There was no such reservation in the case of Nauru, and the commission was therefore bound to consider Nauru as being under a mandate of the Empire as a whole and not of a particular Government within the Empire. The commission points out that while Mr. W. M. Hughes telegraphed on July 2S Sir Joseph Cook’s appointment as the Commonwealth’s representative in reference to Nauru, the Secretary of the Imperial Cabinet notified the League of Nations on July 31 that Sir Joseph Cook had been accredited the representative of the Empire. The commission emphasises the point that although Australia is not designated the mandatory Power for Nauru, the administration of the island is exercised de facto by the Australian Government. Sir A. Steel Maitland completed the New Zealand delegation to-day. Mr. Justice Rich (Australia) is expected to-morrow.— Aus.-N.Z. Cable Assn.