LEAGUE OF NATIONS

Southland Times, Issue 19330, 15 September 1921, Page 5

LEAGUE OF NATIONS

SPEECH BY AUSTRALIAN DELEGATE PROTECTION OF MINORITIES By Telegraph—Press Assn.—Copyright. ) (Australian <t N.Z. Cable Association.) GENEVA, September 13. Addressing the League of Nations, Mr* Bruce said that Australia had been bled in helping to save European civilisation. That was why Australia was as interested as anyone in the future success of the League, which he hoped would replace the arbitrament- of arms by the arbitrament of justice. Such a change had long been . realised in Australian industrial conflicts. , The League considered too many minor subjects. It should concentrate on disarmament. It was imperative that the League should have weapons with which to enforce its decisions, but meantime the economic blockade should prove most effective, because the world was so organised that no nation could withstand such a blockade.

Mr Bruce made a considerable impression and was congratulated by Mr Balfour. Dr. Fisher (England) and Mr Rowell (Canada i warmly supported the proposition to concentrate on disarmament. Professor Gilbert Murray moved two proposals. The first was significantly seconded by M. Mensdorfff Austria! : ‘'That in order to effectively carry out the duties of the League in guaranteeing protection to minorities in certain States the Council be invited to form a permanent commission to consider and report upon complaints addressed to the League, and where it is necessary to make enquiry on the; spot.” The second motion provided that the subject of a national home for Armenians as promised by the Supreme Council in March be referred to a commission of six for consideration. Mr Sastri said much as India would welcome disarmament.it was very doubtful how far it could come in on the general scheme. India’s troubles emanated from Russia, Afghanistan, and Turkey, which were all outside the League. He complained that India, though she had ratified the Washington Labour Coi.. ention, was denied representation on the Bureau of the International Labour Office on the ground that she was not among the great industrial powers of the world; also while India was under the new scheme she was required to pay over 6 per cent, cost of the secretariat, but had only one solitary lepresentative among 351 members.