Pacific Mandates

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XII, Issue 239, 22 September 1922, Page 3

Pacific Mandates

ASIATIC LABOUR ON ISLANDS. DECISION AT GENEVA. MISUNDERSTANDINGS REMOVED Geneva, September 20. During the mandates debate in the League Assembly, Sir Sivaswamy Aiyar (India) said Sir Francis Bell’s explanation was not quite reassuring. It was true Chinese women were unwilling to recruit unless they received the same pay as men but that was a reasonable demand. It had been said that three years’ indenture was insufficient to enable Chinese to learn the language and become associated with the natives, but Sir S. Aiyar maintained that was not a sufficient guarantee against the danger of importing males exclusively. Doubtless the New Zealand Government, which displayed i much solicitude for the welfare of its people, would realise the importance ot a due nrqportion of the sexes among , recruited labourers, as India did. Sir S. Aiyar commended the Mank dates Commission for insisting on safe- . guarding the native land tenure. When Sir Francis Bell spoke on the previous day Sir S. Aiyar said he won- ’ dered what in the Commission’s report had offended Sir Francis Bell’s susceptibilities. He had since searched ' the report mainly to find justification of the Mandates Commission. It had extolled and not censured New Zealand’s administration of Samoa. Mr. Bellegrade (Hayti) condemned the dominions which wanted to deprive 1 the natives in mandated territories of ‘ the right to petition direct to the Mandates Commission. ‘ SIR JAMES ALLEN’S REPLY. Sir Jjimes Allen, replying to Sir S. k Aiyar v declared that New Zealand was ’ anxious for the Welfare of both the natives and the indentured labourers, who came to Samoa under the three years’ contract. He wished they could ’ have transported the League to New p Zealand when the mandates were under discussion by Parliament. The (.league would have realised that New J Zealand members were readier to cri- ’ ticise the Government for any suppos--1 ed laxity of administration than even r the Mandates Commission was. Referring to indentured labour. Sir ’ James Alien said that before the war Chinese arrived in Samoa unaccomr panied by their wives. A New Zealand Parliamentary party visited Sa- ‘ moa after the war to investigate not ‘ only contract labour but tho moral issue, and as result it was determined that Chinese should bring their wives if possible. The result was that the Chinese brought women, but not their • wives, so the attempt had failed. Sir j Janies Allen defended the introduction ’ of Chinese on the ground that the Sa- • moans were a proud race. They owned ’’ lands communally, were able to supply their limited needs easily, and wen» not prepared to acept pay as day labourers. The heavy work of cultiva--9 tion would have had to be abandoned t unless labour was imported. C Referring to the procedure of the 3 Mandates Commission. Sir James r Allen said he regretted tho disclosure . of the report at a public meeting. He urged that petitions should come through the mandatory Powers, and d warned the Assembly of the great danger of allowing petitions to go direct to the Mandates Commission without being seen by the Power concerned. c The natives if left alono would probably petition ior what they honestly wanted, but the natives were not left ■ alone. They were influenced by agitators for ulterior purposes. t APPROVAL OF THE REPORT. a e Mr Walton regretted that the Indian e delegates had reflected , upon South 0 Africa’s administration of the man--3 date. Lord Rebel t Cocil also defended General Smuts from the Indian criticism. Referring to the right of petition, he thought a duplicate should be sent to the mandatory Power. Ixird l * Robert Cecil considered the report oi 1 the Mandates Commission highly llatJ tering to the administration of Australia and New Zealand. Regarding e Nauru, he pointed out that the monor poly over phosphates was acquired by r a voluntary sale from the Pacific Phosf phate Company, which prior to the t war employed Chinese miners. Never- . theless, he hoped the employment of Chinese labour would soon be discon--1 tinned. Sir Joseph Cook said he would like • to say he had no complaint whatver 1 against the Mandates Commission. It < was true the Commission made some 1 preliminary criticism which he thought t, severe, but that was because the Com- . mission did not know all the facts, j The mandatory Powers invited a full investigation. Their trouble came e from people who did not understand u the difficult conditions under which It the mandates were administered. He ) pointed out that there had been scarcely any adverse criticism regarding New Guinea. On the contrary, I Australia had received warm com--3 mendation from the Mandates Comr mission regarding the excellent system of medical hygiene. As regaids Nauru, the Commission was naturally anxious to know why the Chinese were introduced. 'The explanation was that they were only introduced because native labour was unobtainable. The natives knew a thing or two better than to do hard work like phosphate mining. 'The natives lived in comparative affluence and comfort. Sir Joseph Cook agreed with Lord Robert Cecil’s views regarding the right of petition, and assured the Assembly that Aus- , tralia was administering the mandate in the true spirit of trusteeship, primarily in the interests of the indigenous population.—(A. and N.Z.)