PACIFIC MANDATES.

Taranaki Daily News, 21 September 1922, Page 5

PACIFIC MANDATES.

THE CONTROL OF SAMOA. NEW ZEALAND’S DUTY. rebuke to the league. By Telegraph.—Press Assn.—Copyright. Received Sept. 20, 8.25 p.m. Geneva, Sept. 19. Something like a sensation was created by Sir Francis Bell’s denial of the right of the permanent mandates commission to interpret for New Zealand the meaning of the covenant under which she exercises the mandate over Samoa, or to dictate the procedure New Zealand should adopt in carrying out her duties.

The declaration was made when the committee presented the-report of the permanent mandates commission, -which had been amended in certain important particulars, with the concurrence of the Australian and New Zealand delegates. Neither side takes exception to the report in its new form, but there was some plain speaking, both in defence ot the permanent mandates commission and in criticism of its methods.

Dr. Nansen moved the adoption of the report. He thanked the mandatory Powers for the way they had carried out their work. On the other hand, he said, the duties of the mandates commission were not always pleasant. If comment wae always complimentary it would not be of much use; it must be critical when criticism was necessary.

Madame Anna Wicksell, a Swedish member of the mandates commission, blamed the Australian Government for not -furnishing fuller information in the first instance instead of leaving it to be dragged out of the High Commissioner at the last moment. The mandates commission had received the High Commissioner’s comments only after its own work was finished. Madame Wicks ell added: “We feel it our duty to be watchful, as we have to safeguard tne interests of men and women who are not capable of defending themselves. We must look with their eyes and feel with their hearts, and sometimes their eyes and hearts are suspicious.” Sir Francis Bell followed. He paid a tribute to the mandates commission’s care and impartiality. He pointed out that New Zealand had a dual obligation, firstly as a member of the League, and secondly as a mandatory. Defining the legal position, Sir Francis Bell said: “His Majesty, in the right of his Dominion of New Zealand, has accepted the mandate for Western Samoa. What His Majesty does in the right of his Dominion he does on the advice of his Ministers in that Dominion and not of the Ministers of Britain, and the statement which I present is one which the Government of New Zealand very respectfully, but very urgently, presents to this Assembly.”

Sir Francis Bell added: “The NewZealand Parliament legislates for Western Samoa, and the administrator rules and administers those laws. New Zealand is under an honorable obligation to legislate and administer in accordance with the terms and intentions of the covenant of the League of Nations. She is willing and anxious to receive suggestions and advice from either the permanent mandates commission or the council of the League, but she cannot admit the commission’s power to interpret for her the meaning of the covenant. or to dictate what procedure New Zealand should adopt in her endeavors to perform her duties under the League.’’ ■Sir Francis Bell offered two objections to the present procedure: Firstly, the report of the mandates commission should be to the council and not to the public. New Zealand had nothing to fear from an investigation, and courtea the fullest inquiry, but New Zealanders did not court or desire opinions upon their laws and administration from anybody other than the council or assembly. The council must necessarily require from its mandates commission a very free statement of its investigation, but if such report was published it could not fail to give offence to the mandatory Legislature and Government. The second objection was that as the mandatory Powers were not represented on cither the council or the mandates commission, their delegates to the assembly should have the right to require that the opinions and objections of the mandates commission should be reported to the assembly, where the mandatory Powers possessed representation.

Sir Francis Bell continued that the right of the mandatory Power whose legislation or administration might be under consideration to appeal from adverse comment should be definitely established. He added: “The mere right of audience is wholly insufficient. We require to govern, and we must govern to the best of our ability. We require to legislate, and we must legislate in accordance with the careful exercise of our own discretion.”—Aus.-N.Z. Cable Assn.