The Daily News. TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 1922. THE PACIFIC MANDATES.

Taranaki Daily News, 12 September 1922, Page 4

The Daily News. TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 1922. THE PACIFIC MANDATES.

It is to be hoped that the action of the League of Nations relative to the administration of mandated territories is not a sample of the way in which the general business of the League is carried out. It seems that the secretariat obtained various reports, the substance of which was embodied in a general report of the Mandatory Commission of the League, in which were included the chairman’s observations and conclusions, as well as certain criticisms on the administration of these mandated territories. Manifestly these reports and other documents on which the Council’s report was based were ex-parte .statements, the value of which could only be estimated by knowing by whom the original reports and other documents were indited, and the presentation of the full contents thereof to the members of the League. That information appears to have been delibeiately held back, and had it not been for the timely intervention of Lord Balfour, who refused to be a party to the adoption of criticism of the administration without first having an opportunity of seeing and judging the evidence, these criticisms, and the chairman’s conclusions emphasising the same, would have been adopted by the League. The mandatory administration chiefly attacked appears to be Nauru, New Guinea and Samoa. It is certainly a very high-handed manner of dealing with such an important matter, which very closely, affects, the honor, bona fides and administrative ability of the British Empire, to make unfrit ndly and apparently unjustified criticisms, such as were in evidence at the August meeting of the Commission at Genoa, without even quoting or indicating the nature of the evidence on which the strictures were founded. This may be a foreign method; it certainly is not British. The Commission seems to have been considerably exercised over affairs at Nauru, and, what is more a.t<>iv ishing, demanded further information as to the exact status o? that territory under the mandate. Such a demand at once emphasises the fact that the Commission was not fully possessed of the fundamental knowledge whereby alone it would be able to form a reliable judgment as to whether the administration of Nauru was not what it should be. Sir Joseph Cook (Australian High Commissioner) has rightly taken up the cudgels on behalf of his Government. and clearly defined its position in this matter as the duly constituted agent for the British Empire, which is the mandatory authority. The Permanent Mandates Commission has evidently not taken the trouble to ascertain either the nature of Australia’s jurisdiction or the terms of agreement under which Australia acts, otherwise that Commission would have known that the Nauru Commissioners are independent of Government control in working, selling and shipping the phosphate, but not otherwise. Therefore, the question of labor is one entirely for the Government. Instead of creating a monopoly, as the League Commission infers, the Governments concerned have made the interests of the natives their first care. A fact that, is deservedly emphasised is that the phosphates are not being worked for profit, but, for assured supsplies. so that whatever concern may be felt concerning the possibility of the interests of the people being subordinated to the exploitation of wealth, is absolutely

remarkable feature of this unpleasant incident is, after the mischief had been done by the unjust criticisms, that the chairman of the Council should calmly turn round and state “that the object of the report was to draw the attention of the mandatory Powers to certain matters.” The world, which ixpeets much from the actions of the League, cannot fail to he startled at the manner in which’ this Commission has gone to work over these mandates. To broadcast hostile criticisms, without submitting evidence or giving those concerned the opportunity of rebuttal, does not coincide with the principles on which the League was created, and it is to be hoped that such a course will be most carefully avoided in future. In view of the revelations concerning German propaganda, it is quite possible the information obtained by the League was tainted to some extent thereby. Even if this was not a factor in the criticisms, it is obvious they were made as the result of insufficient care and knowledge. The position the League enjoys is so unique that any false move will seriously affect its usefulness. While it is charged with the duty of supervising the operation of the mandates, the utmost care must be exercised to prevent friction, or even adverse comment.