NAURU MANDATE

Dominion, Volume 15, Issue 270, 10 August 1922, Page 7

NAURU MANDATE

$ PROTEST AGAINST COMMISSION’S REPORT i z EXPLOITING THE WEALTH OF THE ISLAND BY TELEGRAPH.—PRESS ASSOCIATION. -COPYRIGHT. Geneva, August 8. The report of the Permanent Mandates Commission, referring to Nauru Island, expresses fear that the disproportion between the material wealth of the island and the small number of the inhabitants may reduce the Mandatory Powers to subordinate the interests of the people to the exploitation of wealth. The report further suggests that the wealth and development of the inhabitants of islands which it is the Commission’s duty to safeguard are in danger of being com-promis-ed, and also that- the question whether the action of the Mandatory Powers in reserving ownership for exploitation is consistent with the requirements of the mandate. Both Sir James Allen and Sir Joseph Cook jirotested against the remark® in the report, which they said was liable to convey a wrong impression. They explained to the best of their ability, but left untouched the question of how the surplus amount of the phosphate was disposed of.—“ The Times.” SERIOUS INNUENDOES CONTROVERTED BY HIGH COMMISSIONERS (Rec. August 9. 8.55 p.m.) , London, August 9. Sir Joseph Cook and Sir James Allen returned from Geneva last night. They are satisfied with the result of the mandatory conference, because, it gave them an opportunity of criticising the misleading portions, of the Permanent Mandates Commission’s report. The commission comprises representatives of the Ib'itish Empire, Belgium, Holland, Italy, Spain, Portugal, France and Japan, who authorised the report to the League of Nations Council in iSentember concerning the carrying out of the permanent mandates bv Australia, Now Zealand, and South Africa, in New Guinea. Nauru, Samoa, and Africa. The first two days of the conference were devoted to prolonged interrogations of Sir. Joseph Cook, Sir ‘James Allen and Sir Edgar Walton, with reference to the administration of the mandates. The Commissioners therefore prepared a-xej>ort and submitted it to a public session oil Monday. The Dominions’ representatives rl’d not receive copies of the report until half-an-hour before the session opened and were surprised to learn that it contained -serious inpuendoes regarding Nauru. Sir Joseph Cook and Sir James Allen vigorously controverted these suggestions, but the conference, not being empowered to revise, amend or reject the report, it goes forward to the Council in the form submitted to the conference. The report did not contain a serious criticism of either New Guinea, or Samoa, and was rather favourable in its reference to New Guinea.—Aus.-N.Z. CaWe Assn. ■