A.—s

importance that attaches to it —it did, in fact, no more than restate the oft-repeated and well-understood views of the Government—but simply because this is a New Zealand document. The New Zealand representative said-— "My only reason for speaking is to avoid any risk lest silence may be misinterpreted. We agree with those who hold that, under present circumstances, discussion on the Covenant can serve no good purpose. " Since, however, the matter is being discussed and is the subject of formal statements on behalf of Governments, I am to say on behalf of New Zealand— " First, that we retain our faith in the League and in the Covenant as they are and in the policy set out in the letter addressed to the SecretaryGeneral by the Prime Minister of New Zealand on the 16th July, 1936, recorded in League of Nations official Journal Special Supplement No. 154. " Secondly, that holding these views we cannot support any resolution, interpretation, or declaration the effect of which would be to weaken the principles of the Covenant; Thirdly, that we will willingly take our part with others in maintaining those principles; " Finally, that we are in complete accord with the views expressed by the . representatives of the United Kingdom and of other countries regarding Article 11 of the Covenant and the separation of the Covenant from the Treaties of Peace." The sequel to the long discussion was that M. Munters (Latvia) was given the well-nigh impossible task as Rapporteur of drafting a report that could have general assent. In this he substantially succeeded. No attempt was made to amend the wording of Article 16, nor, after a short reference to " declarations and observations," to do more than " note the situation of fact created by them " and to suggest that the Assembly refer them to members of the League. But was any " situation of fact" so created? Even this guarded phrase might have been read, by some ambiguously perhaps, to infer that a change of substance had been made, and a change to the serious detriment of the Covenant. Hence it was not acceptable. After further friendly discussion, in which it was recalled that Article 26 really presented the proper procedure for amending the Covenant, compromise was reached on a report and resolution. These, duly approved by the Assembly (A. 74, 1938, VII), refrain from expressing any opinion either on the contents of declarations and observations respecting Article 16 or on " a de facto situation which, according to certain delegations, is thus created." Article 11 of the Covenant was discussed somewhat less than Article 16 and, in the final result, with even less consequence. The United Kingdom proposed, and New Zealand was with the great majority in supporting, a resolution that would have enabled the Council to proceed to " express an opinion, adopt a report, make recommendations " in any circumstance which threatens to disturb international peace, and to do so "with the consent of all its members other than the parties to the dispute." The present position is that the clear intention of the Covenant, under which the League should be able to inter vene early in an actual or threatening dispute between nations, may be frustrated by the objection of the party or parties in question. The resolution duly came to the Assembly: twenty-nine States voted for, eleven abstained, two (Poland and Hungary) voted against. The resolution was not adopted. " Collaboration between the League and non-member States," being another matter long under discussion prior to this Assembly, was the subject of a unanimously adopted resolution of the Sixth Committee and the Assembly. This resolution requested the Secretary-General to transmit to non-member States an invitation for comment or suggestions for further developing technical and non-political collaboration between them and the League. To complete the reference it may be added here that, by authority of the Council (30th_ September, 1938), the invitation has been sent to the United States oi America, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Costa Rica, Iceland, Germany, Guatemala, Honduras, Japan, Liechtenstein, and Nicaragua. Separation of Covenant from Treaties of Peace. The fourth and final aspect of the " Application of the Principles of the Covenant " discussed in 1.938 concerns the Covenant in its relation to the Peace Treaties. It has long been recognized _ (and this without prejudice to what may now be seen as defects or merits in those treaties) that the League Covenant should be separated from the Treaty of Versailles and other treaties resulting from the Great War. This was favoured by, amongst others, the New Zealand Government (Prime Minister's letter of 16th July, 1936' point 16) as a first step towards reconsidering the status established by unjust treaties! For others, the separation was viewed as an innocuous proceeding with no such implications of substance. Indeed, the view was pressed, and it is recorded in one of the resolutions now unanimously approved (A. 78, 1938, VII), that already "from the first, the Covenant has had an independent existence ..." The Assembly, adopting the Sixth Committee's report and draft resolutions took all necessary steps on its part to make clear the formal separation of the Covenant from the Treaties of Peace. Its resolution and the draft amendments have been communicated (Council decision, 30th September, 1938) to the following non-member States: United States of America, Brazil, Costa Rica, Germany, Guatemala, Honduras, Japan and Nicaragua. It rests now with States members to sign the Protocol giving effect to the amendments.

27