RUSSIA’S REFUGEES.

Taranaki Daily News, 18 September 1922, Page 5

RUSSIA’S REFUGEES.

LOOKING FOR NEW HOME, EYES ON OTHER LANDS. AUSTRALIA’S PROTEST. By Telegraph.—Press Assn.—Copyright. Received Sept. 17, 11.30 p.m. Geneva, Sept. 17. Sir Mark Sheldon (Australia) conducted persistent and ultimately successful opposition to a well-organised attempt on the part of the social committee of the League of Nations to dump Russian refugees in tens of thousands in the overseas Dominions. The proposal came up in the form of four resolutions by the representative of Czecho-Slovakia, as follows: (1) Requesting all the Governments who are members of the League to accord support to Dr. Nansen, who has. been officiating as High Commissioner on behalf of the .League, in succoring half-a-million Russians. (2) Requesting the Governments to place their labor exchanges at the disposal of Russian refugees for the purpose of employment, with full liberty to travel within their territories. (3) To provide refugees with identity certificates to enable them to dispense with passports. (4) Urging the Governments to come to the relief of the overcrowded European labor markets by relaxing their immigration restrictions in favor of Russians, making concrete offers of employment. Dr. Nansen supported the proposals in a strong speech, in which he pointed out that fifteen hundred thousand Russian refugees, mostly belonging to the richest and best-educated classes, were now penniless and workless, being scattered throughout Europe. In some countries they and their women and children were foodless and destitute and were becoming a menace to the public health of Europe. Their only hope lay in transportation to healthier conditions in new countries. He appealed to the international charitable organisations for help for the hundreds of thousands registered in Constantinople, Warsaw, Sofia, Belgrade, Paris and Berlin.

The committee was on the'point of adopting the resolutions, when Sir M. Sheldon intervened. While not attempting to dictate to other countries, he said it would be impossible for him, as Australia’s representative, to agree to resolutions two and four, the former being contrary to Australia’s laws and the fourth impracticable, owing to Australia’s distance from Europe. Australia was arranging for 100,00,0 British emigrants yearly, thereby relieving the British labor market to that extent. Furthermore, the refugees were unlikely to become readily assimilated with the Australian people; they werebetter fitted by language and racial characteristics to be assimilated in Europe. Sir M. Sheldon urged that the report be referred back.

Ultimately a sub-committee re-draft-ed the recommendations, omitting the second and -fourth resolutions.

Dr. Nansen frankly acknowledged that the original proposals were not applicable in the Dominions, and agreed that Sir M. Sheldon was perfectly justified in his opposition.—Reuter.