PACIFIC MANDATES.

Taranaki Daily News, 22 September 1922, Page 5

PACIFIC MANDATES.

THE LABOR PROBLEM. POSITION IN SAMOA. NECESSITY FOR CHINESE. By Telegraph.—Press Assn.—Copyright. Received Sept. 21, 9.50 p.m. Geneva, Sept. 20. Lord Robert Cecil considered the report of the mandates commission highly flattering to the administration of Australia and New Zealand. Regarding Nauru, he pointed out that the monopoly over the phosphates was acquired by the voluntary sale from the Pacific Phosphate Company, which prior to the war employed Chinese miners. Nevertheless, he hoped the employment of Chinese labor would soon be discontinued. Sir Joseph Cook (Australia) said he would like to say that he had no complaint whatever against the mandates commission. It was true the commission made some preliminary criticism which he thought severe, but that was because the commission did not know all the facts. The mandatory Powers invited full investigation; their trouble came from people who did not understand the difficult conditions under which the mandates were administered. He pointed out that there had been scarcely any adverse criticism regarding New Guinea; on the contrary, Austrar lia received warm commendation from the mandates commission regarding the excellent system of medical hygiene. As regards Nauru, the commission was naturally anxious to know why Chinese were introduced, and the explanation was that they were only introduced because native labor was unobtainable. The natives knew a thing or two better than to do the hard work of phosphate mining. The natives lived in comparative affluence and comfort. Sir Joseph Cook agreed with Lord Cecil’s views regarding the right of petition, and assured the assembly that Australia was administering the mandate in the true spirit of trusteeship, and primarily in the interests of the indigenous population. AN INDIAN’S VIEW. Sir Sivaswamy Aiyar (India) said Sir Francis Bell’s explanation was not quite reassuring. It was true Chinese women were unwilling to recruit unless they received the same pay as men, but that was a reasonable demand. It had been said a three years’ indenture was insufficient to enable Chinese to learn the language and become associated with the natives, but Sir S. Aiyar maintained that this was not a sufficient guarantee against the danger of importing males exclusively. Doubtless the New Zealand Government, which displayed much solicitude for the welfare of its people, would realise the importance of a* due proportion of sexes among the recruited , laborers as India did. Sir S. Aiyar commended the mandates commission for insisting on safeguarding the interest of land tenure. When Sir Francis Bell spoke the previous day, Sir S. Aiyar said he wondered what was in the commission’s report that had offended Sir Francis Bell’s susceptibilities. He had since searched the report, mainly to find justification of the mandates commission; it had extolled, and not censured New Zealand’s administration of Samoa.

M. Bellegarde (Hayti) condemned the Dominions, which wanted to deprive the natives in the mandated territories ot the right to petition direct to the mandates commission.

Sir James Allen, replying to Sir S, Aiyar, declared New Zealand was anxious for the welfare of both the natives and the indentured laborers who came to Samoa under a three years’ contract. He wished they could have transported the League to New Zealand when the mandates were under discussion by the Parliament, and then the League would have realised that New Zealand members were readier to criticise the Government for any supposed laxity of administration that even the mandates commission was. Referring to indentured labor. Sir James Allen said that before the war Chinese arrived in Samoa unaccompanied by their wives. A New Zealand Parliamentary party visited Samoa after the war to investigate not only contract labor, but the moral issue. and as a result it was determined that the Chinese should bring their wives if possible. The result was that the Chinese brought women, but not their wives, so the attempt failed. SAMOANS WILL NOT WORK. Sir James Allen defended the introduction of Chinese on the ground that 1 Samoans were a proud race. They owned lands communally, were able to supply their limited needs easily, and were not prepared to accept pay as day laborers. The heavy work of cultivation would have had to he abandoned unless labor was imported. Referring to the procedure of the mandates commission, Sir James Allen said he regretted the disclosure of the report at a public meeting. He urged that petitions should come through the mandatory Powers, and he warned the assembly of the grave danger of allowing petitions direct to the mandates commission without being- seen by the Power concerned. The natives, if left alone, would probably petition for what they honestly wanted, but the natives were not left alone. They were influenced by agitators for ulterior purposes. Sir Edgar Walton (South Africa) regretted that the Indian delegates had reflected upon South Africa’s administration of her mandate. Lord Robert Cecil also defended General Smuts from Indian criticism. Referring to the right of petition he thought a duplicate should he sent, to the mandatory Power concerned. —Aus.N.Z. Cable Assn. REPORT ADOPTED. Geneva, Sept. 29. l •Sir James Allen, Sir Joseph Cook, and Mr. Justice Rich said they were satisfied with the mandate report in its revised form, which was adopted without dissent.