LEAGUE OF NATIONS

Southland Times, Issue 19590, 11 August 1922, Page 5

LEAGUE OF NATIONS

THE MANDATES COMMISSION PACIFIC ISLANDS QUESTION (By Telegraph—Press Assn.—Copyright.) (Australian and New Zealand Cable Assn). GENEVA, August 9. : , A passage in the report, of the Mandates • Commission says the Commissioners noted I with satisfaction that New Zealand has expressly forbidden alcohol in Western Samoa, lhe Commission was deeply impressed with Sir James Allen’s statement that exprienct had shown that the only method for suppressing liquor consumption among natives was to compel all nationals in the territory to set the example of total abstinence. The Commission drew attention to the significant fact that while prohibition was enforced in New Guinea and South-west Africa, in the islands placed upder the Japanese exemptions were allowed by the adnunistration. The Commission requested information regarding the extent of these exemptions. The Commission also condemned recruiting male Chinese labour for Nauru as calculated to raise serious problems. Regarding the Nauru mandate the Commission’s report adds: “The Commission moreover, is concerned by the question whether Australia as the mandatory Power, by reserving the ownership and exclusive exploitation of the resources of Nauru ro itself, has brought itself into true harmony with the requirements of the mandate which in accordance with the Covenant it should exercise on behalf of the League of Nations. The Commission decided, however, merely to request Australia to furnish fuller in- | formation with regard to its administration | end to inform the Council of the League of . Nations of apprehensions or scruples aroused by facts to which the Commission has drawn attention. SIR JAMES ALLEN INTERVIEWED. COMMISSION’S REPORT PRESENTED. 01’FENSIVE INNUENDOES. LONDON, August 9. Sir James Allen, interviewed, said the first knowledge he had of the Mandatory | Commks:- :.'s report was when it- was read at the public session of the conference. He was gllid to-be able to pay a tribute to Sir Joseph Cook’s splendidly vigorous defence. He completely refuted the Coicmifsion’s unfounded hints and insinuations, which were all the mere offensive because they were expressed in the form of innuendo instead of being stated frankly as specific charges. He was able to back up Sir Joseph Cook more effectively because New Zealand, while interested in Nauru, was not responsible for its administration. He resented the suggestion that the Nauru natives’ welfare was being prejudiced and the island exploited for profit by Australia. Such allegations were indefensible unless made upon definite evidence, which the authors of the report did not produce. They did not even suggest that evidence existed. I Neither the Australian nor the New Zeaj land Government would dream of attempt.- : ing such exploitation as the report- insinuated, and even if the Governments did the I Parliaments would not. He deeply re- • gretted Majcr Ormsby Gore's attitude. He . was the sole representative of the British Empire, and as such represented not only j Britain but Australia and New Zealand, i The allegations were against Australia, which, was Britain’s mandatory over Nauru. | SIR JOSEPH COOK RETICENT. CRITICISM OF BRITISH REPRESENTATIVE. LONDON. August 9. (Received August 10, 8.5 p.m.) Sir Joseph Cook prefers to say nothing regarding the Nauru agreement at present, beyond calling attention to the fact that Major Ormsby Gore opposed the mandatory Bill in the House of Commons on June 16, j 1920, yet now he represents the British j Empire on the Mandatory Commission.