Obrázky stránek

the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.

“The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as mandatories on behalf of the League.

The character of the mandate must differ according to the stage of the development of the people, the geographical situation of the territory, its economic conditions and other similar circumstances.

“Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognised subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory.

" Other peoples, especially those of Central Africa, are at such a stage that the Mandatory must be responsible for the administration of the territory under conditions which will guarantee freedom of conscience and religion, subject only to the maintenance of public order and morals, the prohibition of abuses such as the slave trade, the arms traffic and the liquor traffic, and the prevention of the establishment of fortifications or military naval bases and of military training of the natives for other than police purposes and the defence of territory, and will also secure equal opportunities for the trade and commerce of other members of the League.

“There are territories, such as South-West Africa and certain of the South Pacific Islands, which, owing to the sparseness of their population, or their small size, or their remoteness from the centres of civilisation, or their geographical contiguity to the territory of the Mandatory, and other circumstances, can be best administered under the laws of the Mandatory as integral portions of its territory, subject to the safeguards above mentioned in the interests of the indigenous population.

“In every case of mandate, the Mandatory shall render to the Council an annual report in reference to the territory committed to its charge.

"The degree of authority, control, or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory shall, if not previously agreed upon by the members of the League, be explicitly defined in each case by the Council.

A permanent Commission shall be constituted to receive and examine the annual reports of the Mandatories and to advise the Council on a matters relating to the observance of the mandates."

The provisions of this article applicable to the islands of the Pacific, other than Nauru, is the clause beginning, “There are territories."

The words, “subject to the safeguards above mentioned in the interests of the indigenous population," clearly apply to the safeguards mentioned above with the exception of the guarantee for equal opportunities for trade and commerce. The safe. guards, it will be seen, are identical with those contained in the Papua Act and with the conditions under which British New Guinea was originally entrusted to the Australian Colonies. Whether the provisions relating to trade and commerce apply to the Australian mandate is doubtful. It is submitted that they do not. The administration of the island of Nauru is provided for by a separate Act of the Commonwealth Parliament.



By the Rev. Dr. Andrew Harper.


The Policy of Selective Immigration. In the first year of the Commonwealth of Australia the first general Immigration Restriction Act was passed, and when it was being discussed Sir William McMillan expressed in a memorable way the feeling of many in Australia, and of practically all Britain regarding the object we were seeking to secure. He said: Every one of us must feel that in attempting to shut out any human beings from our shores, and from the privileges of British freedom, we are doing a very extreme act."

That was inevitably the prima facie view which anyone approaching the subject from the old liberal point of view would take, and it probably is the view still held by English Liberals and by many modern Conservatives in Britain. America, Canada and Australia had been for a long time competing for immigrants from Europe; and the emigrants had so greatly bettered their condition that emigration had come to be regarded as the panacea for all the ills of the working classes. Looking at the question entirely from the British point of view,* the point of view of a country which desired emigration in order to keep up the standard of living among its own people, unlimited immigration into all sparsely populated countries was regarded as one of the great hopes for the world. Hence arose the feeling that it would be cruel to shut out

any human

* Cf. “ Mill's Political Economy," pop. ed., p. 231.

being” from its benefits. Careful inquiry has convinced the present writer that this is a one-sided · and mistaken view, and this Essay will be mainly an attempt to show that from the point of view of the countries to which immigrants come, any such principle as Sir William McMillan lays down cannot be, and has never been, accepted by any nation that deserved to survive, and that a fatal lowering of the standard of living, and a constant danger of war would inevitably be the result of accepting it in Australia.

But in the face of this economic prejudice among Liberals, which has allied itself in a vague way with the recognition of our common humanity, it is necessary to be precise in our statements. The first thing, consequently, to be done is to define what the White Australia policy is, and what the means proposed for carrying it out are. 1.-Definition of Policy and Means of Carrying

it Out. In general terms, then, the “White Australia " policy is the policy which seeks to prevent the free influx into Australia of labourers and artisans belonging to races whose traditions, and whose political, social and religious ideals differ so much from ours, that it would be very difficult in any reasonable time to assimilate them, and if they came in masses, impossible. And the foundation of that policy is the conviction that such an influx always produces grave evils for both races, and that it cannot really be desired by either, unless cover for designs of conquest, either economic or territorial.

The means for carrying it out are simple, and such as should give offence to no people, if once the policy is accepted. Power is given to the immigration officers to compel each immigrant to write out fifty words in any language he chooses. Virtually, therefore, the Government can make any man's rejection sure, but no specíal nation is named as objectionable.*

* See Australian Commonwealth Acts, Vol. XII., p. 151,


а as

11.-Erroneous Ideas to be Excluded. Now the definition and the law both shut out at once some popular errors as to what the White Australia policy means

(a) It is not meant to exclude travellers, students or merchants, who do not seek to acquire domicile. It is the influx only of labourers and artisans that has been aimed at, for that alone is dangerous. In the protracted negotiations which preceded the British-Japanese treaty of 1894, it was the immigration only of labourers and artisans which was objected to by Australia. That, too, is Japan's attitude to us, for a writer in the Round Table says: “Not only do they entirely exclude Chinese labourers- -a provision which would be certainly applied to European labourers if they attempted to enter Japan in any considerable numbers—but Europeans are not allowed to acquire land—the prelude to domicile."*

(b) It does not commit Australia to drive from their native seats, or place at economic disadvantage any coloured races under her rule. No less a person than the Hon. A. Lyttelton, M.P., stated at a meeting of the Royal Society of Arts in 1908 (28th April) that such a doctrine had appeared in South Africa, and another speaker said it had been imported from Australia. Mr. Lyttelton's comment was :--" It is a strange system of world ethics which, on the acquisition of a country by invasion and the dispossession of the aboriginal inhabitants, would dispute the right of the latter to work therein." That doctrine, wherever it came from, did not come from Australia, for both our theory and practice in such cases have been exactly the opposite. Wherever up till now such races have come under our rule, we have taught and helped them in their own land, and we have sought to preserve them by prohibiting white men from entering the reserves set apart for them. That is, in dealing with coloured men under our rule, we seek to prevent their

* Round Table Magazine," February, 1911. The Anglo-Japanese Alliance. I'p. 132, 138 and 139.

* See

« PředchozíPokračovat »