THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

Press, Volume LVII, Issue 17247, 10 September 1921, Page 9

THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

AMERICA AND THE MANDATES. STATEMENT BY LOBD BOBERT CECIL. <Bj Cable—Press, AsPtwialios— Copyright.) (Australian and X.Z. Cable Association..) GENEVA, September 8. Lord Robert Cecil, speaking on tho Secretariat's report on the work or the Council of the League of Nations, said he was satisfied with tho way the different questions had been dealt wit , but he criticised the secrecy of some of the Council's deliberations. licity was the League's very life bloo , j without which it could not survive. Ho hoped the Upper Silesian question would be settled in a manner that was not only just, but would appeal to the whole world. Referring to the mandates, Lord Cecil said if the question were at a standstill, it would be the fault of the I United States, who do not want the I question dealt with in its absence, but, at the same time, refused the League s invitations of March 26th and June 20th to participate in the discussion. He had just learned of a new proposal, emanating from the United States, and, though he did not desire to criticise Washington, ho regretted that the League's good reputation had been diminished. He did not want the League to be accused of helping any move for the annexation of mandatory districts. Speaking of disarmament, Lord Cecil said it was high time tho League acted, as armaments had increased sinco the war. He moved that the status of the A and B mandates be definitely settled. (There are three types of mandates under the Loague of Nations:— Typo A: Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire ha vo leached a stage of development whero their existence as independent nations con bo provisionally recognised subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alono. The wishes of these communities must bo a principal consideration in the selection of the mandatoiy. Type B: Other peoples, especially those of Central Africa, are at such a stage that the mandatory must be responsible for the administration of the territory under conditions which will guarantee freedom of conscience and religion, subject on'y to the maintenance of public order and morals, the prchibitiou of abuses such as the slave trade, the arnis traffic, and the liquor traffic, and tho prevention of the establishment of fortifications or military and naval bases and of military training of the natives for other than police purposes and the defence of territory, and will also secure equal opportunities for the trade and commerce of other members of the League. Type C: There are terntories, such as Soutn-wost > Africa and certain of the South Pacific islands, which, owinp; to the sparseness of their population, their small sine, their remotenosß from the centres of civilisation, or th<yr geographical contiguity to the territory of the mandatory, and other circumstnnces, can be best administered under the laws of the mandatoiy as integral portion of its territorysubject to the safeguards above-mentioned in the interests of the indigenous population.']

THE COVENANT. interpretation or CLAUSE X. (Received September 9th, 5.5 p.m.) , GENEVA, September 9. Tie Amendments Commission adopted the Committee of Jurists' interpretation of Clause 10 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to the effect that it does not assure the perpetuity and integrity of territorial political divisions sine® military aggression may produce territorial changes, and it doe 3 not impose on members of the League an obligation to furnish armed forces to guarantee menaced territorial integrity.