39

A.—s

under the provisions of the Covenant ? That is a single illustration of questions which must arise in the future between the Mandatory and the Council, differing in degree only from the minor matters of administration which have formed the subject of the reports of this year. All such questions must be determined by the construction of the terms of the Covenant, not merely its legal interpretation, but its intent and spirit, and by a body whose authority for that purpose is-recognized by the Covenant. As a separate point 1 agree with tho objection made by Sir James Allen to the public meeting held underthe rules. II is not eonsorrant with flic position of a mandatory Power that its representatives should be questioned in public by the Permanent Mandates Commission, and I trust the practice will be discontinued in future years. There is not, and never has been, any intention on my part to speak or write with any disrespect to the Permanent Mandates Commission or to any of its members. But the Commission has been elevated by the present procedure into a position of authority which is not contemplated by the terms of the Covenant, which .1 believe will not be accepted by the mandatory Powers in general, and which 1 am confident will never be conceded by New Zealand. Yours faithfully, F. H" D. Bell. 4. From M. Rappard, Director of tho Mandates Section, to the Hon Sir Francis Bell, K.C.M.G., K.C. Dear Sib Francis, — League of Nations, Geneva, 28th September, 1922. I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your interesting letter of the 26th September, and to thank you for the interview you were good enough to grant me this morning. As I explained this morning, I still believe, that the procedure actually followed in the matter of mandates is in much closer conformity with your wish that your letter might lead one to believe. As I ventured to point out, the reports of the Permanent Mandates Commission are addressed solely to the Council, and it is the Council alone which possesses the authority to transmit these reports, with the comments of the mandatory Powers, to the Assembly, and thence to the general public. I beg to confirm also our agreement reached this morning that the correspondence we have exchanged on this matter should not be communicated to the Council, as it would not afford sufficient basis for further action. Pray allow me to thank you onoe more for the great courtesy and kindness you have been good enough to show me during your stay in Geneva, and to repeat the hope that we may have the privilege, of seeing you here again next year. If your next visit here could coincide with the meeting of the Permanent Mandates Commission lam sure that liny existing misunderstanding would rapidly be cleared up. Wishing you a happy return to London and thence to New Zealand. I am, &c, Rappard. With reference to M. Rappard's letter dated 21st September, and set out above, the actual facts appear to be that not only were these " documents not considered confidential once they had reached the Council," but they were published before having boon submitted to it. A further point made by Sir Francis 801 l was that the Mandatories are not represented either on the Council or on the Permanent Mandates Commission ; and, this being so, it appears advisable that the present arrangements should be altered so as to render possible further consideration of the points of view of tho Mandatories, and their answer to proposed criticism of their administration, and this should be effected whether the report considered by the Assembly is finally decided to be a report from, the Council or from the Permanent Mandates Commission. According to present arrangements, as we have seen, a final and authoritative report, even containing inaccurate and incomplete statements on the administration of a mandate, can be compiled and published without first considering the reply of the Mandatories at all, which explanations can be received simultaneously with publication, and which, at the most, may be separately attached to their reports for what they are worth. Nevertheless the procedure as outlined above and followed this year by the Permanent Mandates Commission undoubtedly complied with the regulations known as " Rules of Procedure " (Document C. 404, M. 295, 1921, VI), drawn up by the Permanent Mandates Commission itself, and approved by the Council on tho 10th January, 1922. Sir Francis Bell's protest in the Assembly was merely taken on general grounds ; but I respectfully suggest that fundamentally the objection lies to the Rules of Procedure as being in conflict with the meaning of the Covenant, which requires the Permanent Mandates Commission merely to advise the Council, to whom the Mandatories must report. By approving the Rules of Procedure the Council delegated its powers and duties contemplated by the Covenant as belonging to it alone, and the question arises whether this was within its jurisdiction and authority to do. In any case, arrangements should be made for submission to tho Mandatories —or, as this might mean at least six months' delay in certain cases, to the accredited representatives of the Mandatories —of the confidential draft final report, with observations of the Permanent Mandates Commission, before publication. Some such arrangement as this would appear to be indispensable, whether the report to be considered by the Assembly is to issue from the Permanent Mandates Commission or the Council. I suggest that a remedy may be effected by moving an amendment of the Rules of Procedure, and that immediate consideration bo given to the dangers involved in leaving Rule, 8 as it is. In connection with this there, is another matter of first-rate importance, with regard to which at various times and places some considerable doubt has boon expressed: I refer to the relative power's of the Council and of the Assembly. Considering the constitution and organization of the League, it is possibly inevitable that tho general influence and powers of the Council should increase. There would, however, appear to be no doubt that, whatever the powers of the Council may become, they are limited to a domain which cannot be allowed to encroach on the principles and provisions of the Covenant. If, for example, it is hold that according to the terms of the Covenant the Mandatories are responsible to give a satisfactory account of their stewardship to the Council of the League, then, in the absence of authority to delegate the rights and duties involved in this arrangement, the Council would appear to have acted ultra vires in sanctioning Rule Bof the Rules of Procedure. In other words, instead of being merely a question of procedure, the provisions of Rule 8 conflict with the rights of members of the League derived from the Covenant itself.