MANDATE FOR NAURU.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LIX, Issue 18216, 9 October 1922, Page 9

MANDATE FOR NAURU.

MANCHESTER CRITICISM. "GOOD FAITH OR GUANO." THE PHOSPHATE MONOPOLY. fl«OM OU.K OWN cobrespondent.] LONDON. Aue. 24. Although no editorial comment has appeared in the London dailies regarding the mandate for Nauru recently considered by the Permanent Mandates Commission at Geneva, the Manchester Guardian deems it a question of sufficient importance to devote a. leading article to its consideration. The Geneva correspondent also sends a comprehensive report of the public meeting, in which he suggests that Sir Joseph Cook's defence was not altogether satisfactory.

"Sir Joseph Cook,", -writes the correspondent, "stoutly maintained at the public meeting that the natives of Nauru had never been so well off as they were at present. If their land had to' be taken, they -were to be paid £20 an acre and given a royalty of 3d on every ton of phosphates extracted. Mr. Ormshy-Gore and other members of the commission pointed out that nothing could be more demoralising to a native than to be deprived of his land and given what was for him a large sum of money, which he xvould probably soon dissipate and then be left to drift. Sir Joseph Cook replied that, although provisions were made for : compensation in tho event of the compu'sory. expropriation of land, in fact the cas°> would hardly ever occur, since tho phosphates were found in rocky, land incapable of being cultivated, and thf» natives lived on a fertile zone surroundng it. Powers of the Representative. "The objection to the monopoly as such, however, was not and, in the nature of things, could not, be answered by the Australian representative. Jt is a matter for the Council of the League. It may well be asked in what a mandate differs from- actual ownership if the mandatory Power is alleged to monopolise the resources of the mandated territory. Great Britain and the two Dominions concerned have set a bad example in this regard. Nor did Sir Joseph Cook give satisfactory replies to the Marquis Theodoli's search ing questions about the powers of the representative in Nauru of the monopoly. The Marquis asked what, for instance, would happen if the Administrator of the island made a regulation restricting the hours of labour which the representative of the monopoly refused Jo obey. Sir Joseph Cook said that the Administrator could call the attention of the Australian Government to the matter. In cither words, the representative of the monopoly is not, like the other inhabitants, subject to the authority of tho Administrator of Nauru." Spirit- o! the Covenant. Under the heading of " Good Faith or Guano " the Manchester Guardian makes some very severe' editorial comments. " The Permanent Mandates Commission of the League of Nations," says the writer, " has done a valuable service in sending forward to the Council of the League a highly critical report of the traveaty of a mandate which is being exercised in the names of Great Britain, Australia, and New Zealand over tho tiny island of Nauru . . . The Supreme Council handed over the island, which was German, to tho control of Britain and her two Dominions. These bought out the existing company which was working the phosphates, and are now distributing the wealth of the island in agreed proportions among themselves. The spirit and letter of the Gevenant of the League could hardly be more completely ignored than by 'this singular proceeding. It rests with the League, and not with the Supremo or any other council, to grant a mandate. Yet this mandate, like many others, that urgently await inspection and confirmation, has never been referred to the only body competent to award it.

Open Door to Trade.

" 4cain, it is a vital feature of the mandatory plan as laid down in the .Covenant that in mandated territory the open door shall be kept for trade. Yet here we have three of the British nations party to the Covenant treating a mandated island precisely as if it were a personal possession. The question whether the natives have or have not benefited by the new administration, important thoueh it is. takes second place. We can well believe that they will consider £20 an acre a marvellous sum to receive fo? their land-at least until they ha* snent it-and we make no doubt that they wiU benefit both in health and m Els from the medical and facilities with which the able Australian Administration, is. providing them " But these gams do not disguise the fart that Nauru is a mockery of the Kgue at which its enemies are no slow ♦TfrasD and s, precedent which, if folo°weof as It migh P t well be, in more imShr "Thanks mainTyt f°T n w Cecfs earnest and logical * ■ Tt frive th"e mandatories, that is to $; .' eESer\h,=h .should have I M must be expi ui iy f fc LeagU t e, nf Matter to S dTscussed by the important matters to . g m USSt it ftf S& honest working of the mandatory principle.