LEAGUE APPLIES GAG.

Manawatu Times, Volume XLVI, Issue 2644, 12 May 1923, Page 5

LEAGUE APPLIES GAG.

AS ASTONISHING DECREE. INTENDED TO STOP ABUSE IN SAAR PAPERS. BLOW TO LEAGUE’S PRESTIGE. [By Electric Cable—Copyright.] [Aust. and N.Z. Cable Association.] (Received Friday, 10.45 p.m.) LONDON, May 10.' Sir John Simon, in the House of Comons, raised the question of the League of Nations Council’s decree. He characterised the decree as an extraordinary most astonishing abuse of legislative authority. The decree provided for punishment not exceeding five years’ imprisonment and a fine not exceeding ten thousand francs, on any person publicly casting discredit on the Versailles Treaty or insulting the League of Nations. Sir John Simon wished to know what the Government proposed to do effectively to stop proceedings exposing- the League to contempt and derision.

Major Wood, in replying, said the originally difficult position in the Saar had been immensely complicated by political re-actions in the Ruhr. He had been advised that from a strictly legal viewpoint the Saar Commission had not gone beyond its treaty rights. The decree did not require the approval or confirmation of the Council and was justified by the chairman of the Coramisison on the ground that expressions of opinion in the Saar press, which was subsidised by Germany, wore dangerous. Personally, Major Wood did not make any secret of his dislike of the decree and questioned its wisdom. What the Government now proposed was an impartial inquiry through the League’s machinery into the general question of Saar administration. They would communicate with the States who are members of the Council, and upon their replies, future action would depend. Mr Asquith said there were no complaints to make of the Minister’s action at the Council, but the decree was a most serious matter, affecting the prestige and moral authority of the League. One might ransack the records of the Russian treatment of Poland without finding a more monstrous specimen of despotic legislation, or one more oppressive of the ordinary, elementary rights of free citizenship. Lord Robert Cecil said the decree was bad in principle and ought to be withdrawn immediately. The League, Council should be summoned forth-, with.

Mr Fisher said the League of Nations should discuss the Ruhr, where the situation was becoming more dangerous every hour. Mr Morel said the French did not want Germany to get on her feet again, and meant to destroy German industry.

Mr McNeill, in replying to the debate said the decree had no defenders in that House, and it could not add to the prestige of the League of Nations, but he questioned the wisdom of the course suggested by Asquith > that we should have demanded its immediate withdrawal. He emphasised the Government's desire for an impartial inquiry into the Saar administration. Re. garding the Ruhr, many critics would find their answer in the British reply, when it was published. The bed.rock of our policy was the maintenance of our alliance with France.

Sir John Simon’s motion of protest was defeated by 238 votes to. 145.