THE SAMOAN MANDATE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVII, Issue 20519, 21 March 1930, Page 10

THE SAMOAN MANDATE.

ITS HISTORY AND NATURE,

INTEREST OF UNITED STATES;

QUESTIONS TO BE RAISED. •

BY W. R. KINGSTON. -

The mandate system is an entirely new departure in colonial government, and it may perhaps be of interest to-day lo re- * call the salient points in its origin. A 6 the end of the war the Allied and Associated Powers were confronted with the problem of the disposal of the former German colonies and of parts of the Otto, man Empire. These territories were, at the time, under military occupation. It became the task of the Peace Conference to provide for their future administratioa and the plan ultimately adopted (which,', by the way, was moulded largely by the efforts of our own Mr. Massey) emlradied the principle that these territories should be administered by different governments on behalf of the League of Nation;!, bub not by the League of Nations—a system, in legal words, cf national responsibility subject to international supervision. This plan, known as the mandate sys. tern, was adopted on January 50, 1919, by the " Council of Ten," was transmitted to the Peace Conference Commission * on the League of Nations, and, with very slight changes, was incorporated as Article 22 of the Covenant, which consists of the first 26 Articles of thn Yen sailles Treaty. The Mandate Directly Conferred. The first step was to select suitable mandatory Powers. 'lhis selection was a matter for the Allied Supreme Council and not one for " the League of Nations. Hie German colonies in the Pacific and Africa were not transferred to the League of Nations, as generally supposed According to Article 119 of the Versailles Treaty, " Germany renounces in favour of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers pll her rights and titles over her overseas possessions." Later, on May 7, 1919, the Principal Allied and Associated Powers granted the mandate for Western Samoa direct to New Zealand, tha authority coming direct from Geneva to Wellington. j • It is generally supposed hefte that the mandate for Samoa was receded by His Majesty the King, and handed over bj; him to New Zealand, i.e., th|t New Zealand received the mandate "through the Mother Country. This is not correct (sea 1929 N.Z.L.R. p. 209), but there is some justification for the. misunderstand, ng because of two legal acts which wera dealt with at that time. The first is. that, as there was no power for the Parliament of New Zealand to enact laws for anywhere outside this country, proper authority for such a course had to be obtained. This was secured under the Imperial Foreign Jurisdiction Act, 1890* Secondly, the Treaty of Peace Act;, 1919, was passed to approve and confirm the acceptance of the mandate and the exercise of authority, over the islands which His Majesty may be pleased in pursuance of any such mandate to confer ujon tha Executive Government of New Zealand." This section of the Act was quite unnecessary as at that time the mandate had been conferred direct.

American Treaty Negotiations. Now,, the point of all this is that the United States of America was one of the "principal allied, and associated Powers" >frho received the islands of Samoa from Germany and handed tha mandate to New Zealand. Although tha United States Government did not ratify the Versailles Treaty, that Government has held, to quote its own words, that "there could be no valid or effective disposition of the- overseas possessions of Germany without the assent of the United States." : This right, accruing to the United States through the common victory, and through being an "associated Power," could be surrendered only by treaty, so the United States set out to negotiate treaties, to confirm all the mandates. In the years since the war the United Kates has entered into treaties with nearly, all the mandatories and regulated its status. The most protracted negotiations were those concerning the island of Yap, but even there a convention was signed, with Japan as long ago as February, 19'22. But no negotiations have yet been made between the United States Government and the Governments of Australia and New. Zealand to cover their respective mandates. That such negotiations are to be made may be seen from the following sentence in a NoU> from the United States Secretary of State, Charles E. Hughes, to the Japanese Ambassador, concerning commercial treaties in the Pacific: Tha Government -of the United States has not yet entered into a convention (with Australia and New Zealand) for the giv? ing of its consent to the mandates with respect to these islands."

Commercial Aspect. The United States has another and quit® different reason for interest in Western Samoa, By the Samoa Partition Convention of 1899 the islands of Samoa (which / were previously ruled over by the three Powers, Britain, Germany and the United States') were divided between only Geri many and the United States—Germany to have all west of meridian 171 W. and thai United States all east of that line. One of the clauses provided, however, that each of these three countries was to hava equal commercial rights in both Eastern , and Western Samoa. This convention yee remains in force as regards the United States (Germany's rights were terminated by Article 228 of the Versailles Treaty). That means that the United States should continue "to enjoy in-respect to their commerce and commercial vessels privileges and conditions equal to those enjoyed by the Sovereign Power." However, by a preferential import duty established in 1920, and included in tha Samoa Cnstoms Consolidation Order (N.Z.), 1925, British imports to Western Samoa are charged 15 per cent, ad valorem, as against per cent a valorem on foreign goods, and doubtles3 this apparent breach will be duly inquired into by the United States. By tha way, the Samoan customs tariff is not the" same as that for New Zealand and is fixed by the Governor-General-in-Council. . Now the question naturahy arises—"Why has the United States not opened negotiations with New Zealand to settle these two questions*" The answer undoubtedly lies in the confusion concerning Dominion status, and the well-known reactionary policy of the United States Government in not recognising the presen status of the Dominions. However, the day is drawing perceptibly nearer when the Dominions, including, of course, New Zealand, will he practically autonomous, according to the provisions of the Imperial' Conference ot 1926. When the necessary Acts have been duly passed, it is also reasonable to suppose that the United States Government will make its long-delayed overtures concerning the mandate.

A Problem. So here is another problem for our Dominion legislators, and one that wi doubtless come as a surprise to many New Zealanders. Traditionally, the United States Government leans toward over-ready suggestions in other nations affairs, of which the most recent, example was the offer of mediation in the RussoChinese dispute over the Chinese Eastern Railway only last year —an offer that was snubbed by the Soviet. A few years earlier the United States Government suggested an international control of the South Mancburian Railway, and thereby, earned the unstinted hatred of the Japan-.

An official suggestion from the United States Government about Western Samoa would not, therefore, be altogether unexpected. A cynical French observer once said, "The Americans are the S r ® a |, short-distance idealists in the world.