LABOUR'S GAINS FROM THE WAR

Sun (Christchurch), Volume VI, Issue 1578, 5 March 1919, Page 7

LABOUR'S GAINS FROM THE WAR

INTERNATIONAL CHARTER ADOPTED. IMPORTANT CONCESSIONS TO WORKERS PROTECTION MEASURES FOR WOMEN AND CHILDREN By Colic. — Press Association. — Copyright, j[A & X.Z.) (Ree. March 5, 9.1 a a.to.) LONDON, March 4, Mr 6. N. Barnes (Minister without portfolio) states that the International Labour Committee at Paris endorsed the British draft of an International dialler of Labour. It includes no employment of children under 15, and boys and girls between IB and 18 wall be allowed to work only six hours daily. The hours of all workers must net exceed eight daily, or 48 weekly. Workers are to be allowed a continuous weekly rest of at least 36 hours between Saturday and Monday. Women must not be employed at night or given homework after the regular day’s work. Workers shall have the right of free combination and association in all countries. Immigration shall not be prohibited, though any State shall have the right to restrict immigration temporarily in times of economic depression. OPPOSITION TO LEAGUE OF NATIONS. SAID TO ENDANGER THE MONROE DOCTRINE. (A, & N.Z.) (Kec. March 6, 9.55 a.m.) WASHINGTON, March 4. Forty Republican Senators have signed a petition demanding that the question of the League of Nations he considered apart from the Treaty of Peace, and opposing the present draft of the League of Nations because it endangers the Monroe doctrine and the powers granted to the Congress under the Constitution of the United States, The petition may be submitted to the Senate for adoption. Senator 11. C. Lodge (Republican, Massachusetts) offered a resolution to the Senate rejecting the present draft of the League •f Nations and urging the Peace Conference to expedite the signing of the Peace Treaty. The Monroe doctrine was enunciated by President Monroe in a message te Congress on December 2, 1823. President Monroe said:—“ln the discussions to which this interest has given rise, and in the arrangements by which they may terminate, the occasion has been deemed proper for asserting, as a principle in which rights and interests of the United States are involved, that the American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonisation by any European Power. . . . We owe it, therefore, to candour and to the amicable relations existing between the United States and those Powers to declare that we should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety. With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European Power we have not interfered and shall not interfere. But with the Governments who have declared their independence and maintain it, and whose independence we have, on great consideration and on just principles, acknowledged, we could not view any interposition for the purpose of oppressing them or controlling in any other manner their destiny by any European Power in any other light than as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition towards the United States.” Secretary of State Olney, Jn a dispatch of July 20, 1895, on the Venezuelan boundary dispute, said:—“lt (the Monroe doctrine) does not establish any general protectorate by the United States over other American States. It does not relieve any American State from its obligations as fixed by international law, nor prevent any European Power directly interested from enforcing such obligations or from inflicting merited punishment for the breach of them.” President Roosevelt, in a speech in 1902 upon the results of the SpanishAmerican War, said:—“ The Monroe doctrine is simply a statement of our very firm belief that the nations now existing on this continent must be left to work out their own destinies among themselves, and that this continent is no longer to be regarded as the colonising ground of any European Power. The one Power on the continent that can make the power effective is, of course, ourselves; for in the world as it is, a nation which advances a given doctrine, likely to interfere in any way with other nations, must possess the power to back it up, if it wishes the doctrine to be respected.’* AMERICAN FARMERS WILL SUPPORT PRESIDENT. (A. & N.Z.) (Rec. March 5, 10 a.m.) WASHINGTON, March 4. Five branches of the Farmers’ National Organisation, representing all organised farmers in the United States, have pledged President Wilson their support to the League of Nations proposal. SENATE WILL NOT RATIFY PRESENT SCHEME. (A. & N.Z.) (Rec. March 5, 12.40 p.m.) NEW YORK, March 4. The Republican .leaders consider that their petition is tantamount to a definite declaration that the incoming Senate will not ratify the present constitution of the League of Nations, and that the Peace Treaty must be signed before the League is organised. Otherwise the Senate will not ratify either. JAPAN OBJECTS TO RACE DISCRIMINATION. (A. & N.Z.) (Rec. March 5, 12.15 p.m.) ' NEW YORK, March 4. The Tokio correspondent of the “New York Herald” states that apparently Japan will not enter the League of Nations unless race discrimination against Japan is abolished by the nations in the League. t GERMANY WILL NOT ACCEPT PEACE TERMS, REJECTION WILL CONSTITUTE TRUMP CARD. (A. & N.Z.) (Rec. March 5, 12.15 p.m.) LONDON, March 4. The Paris correspondent of the “Daily Telegraph” warns the Allies that no German Government will sign a treaty embodying Home of the conditions now freely advocated by the Allies. If the Germans reject the treaty off-hand, the Allies’ difficulties will increase ten-fold. When Marshal Foch presented the recent armistice terms, Her Rantzau (German Foreign Minister) asked his colleagues to insist on their rejection. They agreed regarding the employment of this weapon, but decided to reserve it for the receipt of definite peace terms, when injection will represent Germany’s last trump. NEED FOR MINISTRY OF COURTESY. OVERSEAS TROOPS LEAVE WITHOUT FAREWELL. (A. A N.Z.) (Rec. March 5, 12.15 p.m.) LONDON, March 4. The “Morning Post” deplores the fact that Australians, New Zealanders and Canadians are going home without an official farewell. “The Government,” says the “Post,” “should arrange ceremonial leave-takings, which would express what the people of England feel regarding their kinsfolk. Instead, our friends are drifting away in silence. . “If the preoccupied Government cannot attend to this, let them instantly create a Ministry of Courtesy.”