THE PACIFIC MANDATE.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 16845, 22 September 1922, Page 5

THE PACIFIC MANDATE.

REPORT ADOPTED. CRITICISM OF ADMINISTRATION. B.y Telegraph—Press Association—Copyright Australian and X.Z. Cable Association. GENEVA, September 20. . During the mandates debate in the League of Nations Assembly, Sir Sivaswamy Aiyar (India) said that Sir> F. I>. Bell’s explanation was not quite reassuring. ft was true that Chinese women were unwilling to recruit unless they received the same pay as the men, but that was only a reasonable demand. It had been said that three years of indenture was insufficient to enable the Chinese to learn the language and become associated with the natives, but Sir S Aiyar maintained that this was not a sufficient guarantee against the danger of importing males exclusively. Doubtless the New Zealand Government. which displayed much solitude for the welfare of its people, would realise the importance of a due proportion of sexes among the recruited labourers as India did. Sir S. Aiyar commended the Mandates Commission for insisting on the safeguarding of the natives’ land tenure. When Sir F. D. Bell spoke the previous day Sir S. Aiyar said he wondered what, in the commission’s report, had offended bis susceptibilities: He had since searched the report, mainly to find its justification of the Mandates Commission. It had extolled and dul not censure Now Zealand's administration of Samoa. M. Bellegarde (Hayti). condemned the dominions which wanted to deprive the natives in mandated territories of their right to petition direct to the Mandates Commission. Sir James Allen, replying to Sir S. Aiyar. declared that New Zealand was anxious for the welfare of both the natives and the indentured labourers who came to Samoa under a three years’ contract. Mo wished that they could have transported the League to New Zealand when the mandates wore under discussion by Parliament. The League would have realised that the New Zealand members were readier to criticise the Government for any supposed laxity of administration than even the Mandates Commission was. Referring to indentured labour. Sir James Allen said that before the war the Chinese arrived in Samoa unaccompanied by their wives. A New Zealand parlia men tar y party had visited Samoa after the war to investigate, not only the contract labour system, but the moral issue, and. as a result, it was deter mined that the Chinese should bring their wives if possible. The result was j that the Chinese brought women, but ■ not their wives, and so the attempt j failed. Sir James Allen defended the j introduction of the Chinese on the j ground that the Samoans were a proud j rate and owned the lands communally, j They were able to supply their limited J needs easily and were not prepared to ! accept pay as day labourers. The heavy j work of cultivation would- have had to 1 lie abandoned unless labour were im- i i ported. Referring to tlic procedure of J • the Mandates Commission. Sir James j j Allen said he regretted the disclosure j of the report at a public meeting. He [ ! urged that petitions should come. | through the mandatory Powers, and { I warned the Assembly of the grave dan- ! ■ ger of allowing petitions to go direct • to the Mandates Commission without being seen by the Power concerned. i The natives, if left alone, would proh i ably petition for what they honestlv | wanted.'but the natives were not left j alone. They were influenced by agitators for ulterior purposes. | Mr Walton regretted that the Indian delegates had reflected upon Soutii

Africa’s administration of the mandate. Lord Robert Cecil also defended General Smuts from Indian criticism. Referring to the right of petition, he thought a duplicate should be sent to the mandatory Power. S Lord Robert Cecil considered that | the report of the Mandates Commis- ; sion was highly flattering to the ad- | ministration of Australia and New j Zealand. Regarding Nauru, he pointed j out that a monopoly over phosphates l was acquired by voluntary sale from ■ the Pacific Phosphate Company, which, j prior to the war had employed Chinese j miners. Nevertheless, he hoped that I the employment of Chinese labour I should soon be discontinued. Sir Joseph Coolc said be would like to say that he had no complaint whatever against the Mandates Commission. it was true that the Commission had made some preliminary* criticism. wlich he" thought severe, but that was because the Commission did not know all the facts. The mandatory Powers invited full investigation. Their trouble came from people who did not understand the difficult conditions under which the mandates were adminis tered. He pointed out that there had been scarcely any adverse criticism regarding New Guinea. On the contrary Australia had received warm commendation from the Mandates Commission regarding its excellent system of medical hygiene. As regards Nauru, the Commission was naturally anxious to know why the Chinese had been i-n. troduced. ' The explanation was that they had only been introduced because native labour* was unobtainable. Th** natives knew a thing or two better than to do the hard work of the phos phate mining. The natives lived b 1 comparative affluence and comfort. Sir Joseph Cook agreed with Lord Robert Cecil’s views regarding Lire right of

petition and assured the Assembly that | Australia administered the mandate in j the true spirit of trusteeship and prim- j arily in the interests of the indigenous j population.