DOMINIONS AND LEAGUE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LVII, Issue 17650, 10 December 1920, Page 7

DOMINIONS AND LEAGUE.

A LIMIT TO COMMITMENTS.

STRONG CANADIAN PROTEST.

DEBATE IN THE ASSEMBLY.

By Telegraph—Press Association—Copyright.

A. and N.Z. GENEVA. Dec. S. The Assembly of the League of Nations day received the report of the commission on technical organisations. The report recommended the creation of three technical organisations, the first to deal •with economic and financial problems, and to carry on the work of the Brussels Conference, the second to deal with communications and transit, and the third to deal with international health. It was proposed that each organisation should have a standing committee at Geneva.

The report further recommended the immediate summoning of a conference at Barcelona, to which the United States should be invited to draft a scheme to pro.ide for freedom of international transit. It also pointed out that it would be the duty of the health organisation to devise a more rapid interchange of information regarding the treatment of epidemics, and to deal with sickness and injury among workers arising out of employment .n co-operation, with the Labour organisation. The International Health Commission would meet in Paris annually. Mr. N. W. Rowel! (Canada) took exception to the principles underlying these organisations, which sought to commit States to matters on which they were j never consulted. The people of Canada, he said, were not prepared to take over conditions which European committees sought to impose, because Europeans did not understand the Canadian point of view. Canada, much as she loved and respected Britain, did not allow her to settle Canadian atfairs, therefore how much less could she hand over questions contain ;d in the report to European States? Who was it but European statesmen who drenched the world with blood? Fifty thousand lives was the cost Canada paid for European statesmanship. Mr. Rowell continued: " Let Europe deal with her own transit and health problems; let us see within a year what she can do with them." M. Gabriel Hanotaux (France), hotly combated Mr. Rowell's remarks, declaring that Europe fought for the rest of the world and humanity. Objections like Mr. Rowell's should have been made at the time of the signing of the Covenant. Australia Supports Canada. Mr. E. D. Millen (Australia) strongly sympathised with Mr. Rowell's idea. The projected organisations, he said, were utterly useless unless created by an international convention. M. Hanotaux was Wrong in b'aming the Covenant; there was nothing wrong with the Covenant, but it was the interpretation now sought to he Dlaced upon it which was wrong. He objected to any attempt to force the commission's report upon the Assembly. The latter must have the right of expressing even adverse criticism upon it, when it was shown that it was asked to do something in direct conflict with the Covenant. He thought that the Assembly might create the organisations, but it might not find a single State to contribute ! to their upkeep. Article 33 of the Coven- j ant provided for supervision by the | League of the matters which it was pro- j posed to entrust to the three pro- j jected organisations. It had been pointed ; out that Article 6 provided that the ex- ' penses of the secretariat should be borne j by the members of the League, but he i warned the Assembly that members were ! committed to the expenses of the .secre- j tariat only. It would be an unfortunate ; thing for the League if members declined to contribute to the upkeep of organisations regarding which they were not consulted. There might be members of the Assembly who were authorised to- commit their countries to the heavy cost of such organisation, but he could not.._ Lord Robert Cecil (South Africa) agreed with much of Mr. Rowell's opposition. lHe thought the organisations should be experimental for a year until it was seen how they worked. He supported Mr. Rowell that no vote should at present, be taken on the principle until the matter was more fully considered. There should also be a (conference between those who held views like Mr. Roweft and others who thought differently. Mr. Rowell subsequently withdrew remarks that might be considered to reflect on the statesmen of European countries. He had merely wished, he said, to illustrate different points of view. What threatened to be a warm debate then cooled down. No vote was taken, and the discussion was adjourned, pending a- conference between M. Hanotaux, reporter rtf the committee, Mr. Rowell, Mr. E. D. Millen, and others.

Victory for the Dominions.

The blockade of the adoption of the report on technical organisations in some respects is a victory for the delegates of the British Dominions, and smaller nations who, view with increasing alarm the tendency to establish all sorts of bureaux with expensive staffs. The Dominion delegates tried hard in various commissions j to secure a reduction of expenditure. Both Sir James Allen and Mr. E.'D. Millen endeavoured to secure some reduction of the high salaries of the secretariat, but they were always met with the contention that in some way or other the Assembly had been committed to them. I The report on technical organisations J did not contain any reference to their cost. The representative of the Australian Press Association learns that this is due | to the fact that the commission is only discussing financial obligations this afternoon, I when a motion by the Indian delegates on j the subject will be considered. It is extraordinary that the report should have been presented, •in view of the Indian motion. Thus the inference is created that if the Assembly had adopted the report, the financial critics this afternoon would have been faced with an . accomplished ! fact. The consensus of opinion is that j Mr. Rowell's taunt against European ! statesmen was ungenerous, but was evolved I in the heat of the moment. His case against extravagance met with warm acceptance. Canadians feel that it is impossible for the Dominions to send their! best representative men to these multi- ! farious organisations, therefore, should they be established, it will mean confiding, their interests largely to European hands The debate will have the effect of rousing the Assembly to closer investigation of the expenditure of the League. Following upon; to-day's debate the commission on" technical organisations adopted a scheme relating to the budgets of the projected organisations.

SCOPE OF ARTICLE TEN.

CANADIAN MISGIVINGS. A. and N.Z. OTTAWA, Dec. 8. Sir R. L. Borden, in a published memorandum, declares that . Canada's principal objection to Article 10 of the League of Nations Covenant is that she does not wish to involve herself in the preservation of the territorial integritv and existing political independence of all members of the League. The undertakings included in the article seem to involve initially careful survey, consideration, and determination of all territorial questions between the various - States, and even if such a survey were practical it ' would be impossible to forecast th e future.