LIMITS OF THE LEAGUE

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 79, Issue 205, 2 September 1935, Page 7

LIMITS OF THE LEAGUE

MUSSOLINI’S OPINION CANNOT IMPOSE SANCTIONS COQUEST OF NORTHERN HIGHLANDS ONLY [By Telegraph—Press Association —Copyright] LONDON, Aug. 30. Mr. Ward Price, the Daily Mail’s Bolzana correspondent, says that after close and repeated ontacts Signor Mussolini declares his view that the League of Nations is an association of States and not a superstate, and therefore cannot impose sanctions. He is completely conlident that when Italy’s argument against Abyssinia is heard the League will reach a decision enabling it to be made effective. He does not intend to conquer the whole of Abyssinia, but only the fertile northern highlands for Italian colonisation and development, in which he was determined to establish full military administrative control. CLEVER MOVE OPINION IN FRANCE Received Sept. 1, 7.40 p.m. PARIS, Aug. 31. The Press considers it a clever move on Haile Selassie’s part to accentuate British and American interest in preserving peace, and points out that the concession will complicate the League s task, as one of Italy’s chief aims is to acquire possible oil fields in the Ogadcn and llawash regions. SELDOM RECOGNISED BY CONQUERING NATRjS MORE POLITICAL THAN LEGAL Received Sept. 1, 6.30 p.m. MELBOURNE, Sept. 1. Professor K. H. Bailed, Professor of Public Law at Meclbourne University, interviewed, said that conquering nations seldom recognised concessions made by a previous Government. In a number of cases arising out of the South African War, British Courts never recognised the British Government as being bound by concessions made by the Boer Republics. A conquering State would not be bound iu respect of concession rights unless they were vested rights. This implied something more than a mere contract. Signor Mussolini would have a very strong case for claiming that h% had no obligation to respect the present Abyssinian concessions under interna tional law, for which reason their importance was less legal than political. WITHHOLD THE CONCESSION BRITISH OFFICIAL ADVICE TO EMPEROR Received Sept. .1, 7.40 p.m. LONDON, Aug. 31. The Foreign Office informed the British. Minister at Addis Ababa that the concession of oil and mineral rights undoubtedly was a matter for parliamentary consultation between the British, French and Italian Governments under the 1906 Treaty, and therefore it instructed the Minister to inform the Emperor that Britain must advise him to withhold the conccession. FRENCH APPROVAL AVOIDING “OIL SCRAMBLE” Received Sept. 1, 7.40 p.m. PARIS, Aug. 31. The Foreign Office’s action is warmly approved in French official circles. It is emphasised that this will prevent the dispute degenerating into an oil scramble.

ITALIAN VIEW RESPECT FOR CONCESSIONS EXCEPTION IN THIS CASE Received Sept. 1, 7.5 p.m. ROME, Aug. 31. Italy has undertaken to respect foreign concessions if she conquers Abyssinia. Well-informed, circles, however, consider that Mr Rickett’s concession may be excepted in view of the time and circumstances in which it was concluded. NO BLANK CHEQUE Received Sept. 1. 8.10 p.m. ROME, Aug. 31. Signor (rayda declares that the concession violates the Italian and British agreements since 1891, under which monopolies were excluded. When Signor Mussolini declared at Bolzano that he would respect British interests, he did not intend to sign a blank cheque and retire doffing his hat if Britain suddenly affirmed that Abyssinia exploitation should be reserved to herself. DIPLOMATIC TANGLE MAY INVOLVE AMERICA NO OFFICIAL CONFIRMATION Received Sept. 1, 7.5 p.m. WASHINGTON, Aug 31. Sensational Press reports concerning the granting of concessdons by Abyssinia to the Standard Oil and British interests lacked confirmation here. The State Department withheld comment pending official advices, and no high Standard Oil officials were immediately available. Observers of international affairs emphasised that the deal, if actually consummated, presents possibilities of future diplomat: l .: tangles in which this country, despite the recent neutrality legislation, might easily become involved. They point out that the State Department already has warned Americans in Ethiopia that it could not bo responsible for their personal safety, but the protection of vast commercial developments might make it. necessary o alter this policy.