LEAGUE UNION

Southland Times, Issue 25343, 23 July 1935, Page 9

LEAGUE UNION

INVERCARGILL COUNCIL BASIC PRINCIPLES DISCUSSED A meeting of the Invercargill council of the League of Nations Union was attended by the Rev. C. J. Tocker (president), Mrs F. M. Corkill, Miss A. A. Eastwood, Miss N. Clare, the Ven. Archdeacon J. A. Lush, Messrs William Macalister, J. L. Cameron, W. T. Gilbert, C. A. Stewart and A. J. Deaker (secretary). The president referred to the loss sustained by the council and by the members personally in the death of Mr A. E. Featherstone. His work for the union, particularly in educational activities, had been of great value. A motion of sympathy with the relatives was carried.

The Dominion secretary wrote notifying that the annual conference would be held in Wellington on August 28 and 29.

As it was the first meeting since the annual meeting of the branch the president elect, Mr Tocker, thanked the members for electing him. He briefly referred to his policy for the year and suggested ■ 'iree things he was anxious to do. First, the membership should be increased; secondly, he would try to get notable speakers from the north for public meetings; and finally, the work of establishing sub-branches in the country districts would be actively pursued.

The Dominion executive wrote to the effect that the Christchurch branch was urging the formation of a society for intellectual co-operation. It had asked that branch to make concrete proposals at the annual conference and also to review the history books which the Education Department is at present using in the schools. The discussion for the day was on "Some Basic Ideas of the League” and was opened by Mr Macalister. He stated that the world was anarchic when the League was established and that it was still anarchic. There was no outside power, and no external authority to bring law and order into international anarchism. Both politically and economically this was the greater and most perplexing of all world problems and the one and only method was by international co-operation. That was the basic idea of the League of Nations. It was the only way, for there was no outside power or external authority. Aldous Huxley, emphasizing this point, had said that the only way to bring about world unity would be to invite an aggression from Mat.. The covenant by which the League of Nations was established made clear the basic nature of international co-operation. The preamble began: "The high contracting parties, in order to promote international co-operation and to achieve international peace and security ... . agree to this Covenant of the League of Nations.” No one had been able to suggest any other way. Mr Macalister referred next t the meaning of the words “League of Nations." He stated that much harm had resulted through the wrongful interpretation of those words. People frequently blackguarded body which they assumed to exist with certain powers. They thought of the League as analagous to a parliament, or a city council; but the League was only a system. Fifty-five independent governments bound together by certain treaty obligations—that was the League. The Covenant read: “The action of the League (these independent governments) under the Covenant shall be effected through the instrumentality of an Assembly and of a Council with a permanent secretariat.” These institutions, however, were not the League; they were only the instruments of the League. The League was nothing more than a set of treaty obligations and a piece of international machinery. The governments themselves might start or stop the machine. The machine could function properly when properly used, but it could not when grit was poured into it instead of oil.

At meetings of the Assembly matters could not be decided by a majority vote. There must be unanimity. The meetings were really conferences and what was done was achieved mainly by persuasion. The term “League” wt.s unfortunately ambiguous, for many thought of the League as a body. The delegates who went to Geneva were the mouth-pieces and agents of independent sovereign Powers and were under the control of theL governments. Members of Parliament were much freer than delegates to the League. When the League failed there was nothing that could be blamed except the nations themselves. We could have had a League in full power apart from any building or body at Geneva at all, yet it would still have had to find some way of giving effect to its resolutions. In League teaching too much stress had been laid on the machinery and this had been misleading. It was much more valuable to study the League as a system or the collective system of maintainin'* peace. Th\ League -system was an honest attempt to do something in the only way it could be done. A general discussion on the collective system followed, and members expressed their appreciation of Mr Macalister’s thoughtful address.