The Dominion TUESDAY, OCTOBER 26, 1926. CRITICS AT THE ROUND TABLE

Dominion, Volume 20, Issue 26, 26 October 1926, Page 8

The Dominion TUESDAY, OCTOBER 26, 1926. CRITICS AT THE ROUND TABLE

There is no mistaking the critical attitude of the delegates, to the Imperial Conference. Behind this attitude is a general desire, a determination, in fact, to get on to the solid ground. That is the reading of the evidence, at all events. lhe accounts, of the pioccedings so far have consisted of reports which are unmistakably official, and therefore reliable, and ex parte statements in which attempts are made to interpret the atmosphere of the assembly. The latter should be accepted with due reserve. _ ....... Air. Anicrv's account of the converging tendency ot bntams and the Dominions’ interest in the development of the non-autono-nious parts of the Empire evoked some frank criticism, particularly from the representatives of the Dominions who have been entrusted with the control of the native populations in the mandated, territories. Some of these march with native territories administered by the Imperial Government. In those cases exchanges of views and harmony of policy are clearly desirable. Mr. Amery’s recognition of this principle reveals a sound common-sense appreciation of_ the position, and his suggestion for an exchange of mandate, officeis seems to offer a simple and practical method of airiting at Certain of the Dominions —particularly Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa—are evidently a little nettled about a questionnaire sent out bv the Mandates Commission in connection with native administration, and discussed at the last meeting of the League of Nations. Charges bad been made, but in the opinion of Mr. Bruce. Mr. Coates, and General Hertzog the Mandates Commission had exceeded its province in sending out a questionnaire on the subject.. Ever since the mandates were given, propagandists serving foreign or special interests have been at work in attempts to undermine the authority of the mandatory States and discredit the system. The Commission's questionnaire was at the very least an indiscretion; an unjustified sop to the propagandists. The evidence elicited by the Commission showed that the mandatory States had in all cases not only fulfilled their obligations, but had exceeded them. • . . A favourite trick of the propagandist is to suggest that the natives are being ill-treated, and that they desiie citbei a return to their former rulers, or some kind of independence. Such a suggestion, applied to the New Zealand mandated territory of Samoa, is perfectly ludicrous. As Mr. Coates pointed out. very effectively, New Zealand is no novice in the handling of the Polynesian native. Her experience of the Maori and the Cook Islanders has enabled her to approach the administration of Samoa with all the advantages of previous experience and matured judgment. In that respect Australia is less fortunate. Her own native problem is. vastly different from her New Guinea responsibility, and she has. in consequence, been victimised by the propagandists to a much greater extent than has been our own experience. The effect of this discussion is a very broad hint to the Mandates Commission at Geneva to allow the British mandatory States to work out their own problems in their own way. Ihe ruling principles have been laid down, and the obligations defined. There is ample provision for the investigation of legitimate complaints of maladministration.