Imperialism 
 
 and 
 
 The Mandates System 
 
 by 
 
 HUNTINGTON GILCHRIST 
 
 Assistant Director, Mandates Section, 
 League of Nations Secretariat 
 
 Published for 
 
 THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 
 NON-PARTISAN ASSOCIATION, Inc. 
 
 6 East 39th Street, New York 
 By the MARGARET C. PEABODY Fund 
 
 March, 1928. 
 
This paper <was presented by Mr. 
 Gilchrist before a meeting of the 
 Geneva Institute of International Re- 
 lations, held in the Glass Room of the 
 Secretariat of the League of Nations on 
 August 11, 1927, under the chairman- 
 ship of the Hon. Theodore Marburg. 
 
 Mr. Gilchrist is a native of Boston. 
 Mass. He has received degrees from 
 IVilliams College, Harvard University 
 and Columbia University. He is a 
 vjell known author and lecturer on in- 
 ternational questions. From 1913 to 
 1914 he was an instructor in the 
 Anglo-Chinese College at Foochow, 
 China, and the following year he did 
 research work for the Chinese and 
 Japanese governments. During the 
 World War Mr. Gilchrist served as 
 private, lieutenant and captain in the 
 United States Army. At one time he 
 was attached to the General Staff 
 Headquarters in Washington, D. C., 
 and later to the General Staff Head- 
 quarters, S.O.S., A.E.F. In 1919 he 
 became personal assistant to Raymond 
 B. Fosdick, who was then Under-Secre- 
 tary General of the League of Nations. 
 Mr. Gilchrist is now Assistant Director 
 of the Mandates Section of the Secre- 
 tariat of the League of Nations. 
 
IMPERIALISM AND 
 THE MANDATES SYSTEM 
 
 By Huntington Gilchrist 
 
 Assistant Director, Mandates Section, 
 League of Nations Secretariat 
 
 A S I read history, the mandates 
 system was created very 
 largely as the result of a reaction 
 against “imperialism,” a reaction 
 which was given added force by 
 the idealism that was born of the 
 war. It was a reaction against 
 those features of that imperialism 
 which, particularly during the 
 forty years preceding the war, had 
 resulted in a terrific struggle for 
 exclusive national rights by the 
 great Powers in the backward 
 regions of the world. That strug- 
 gle for exclusive economic control 
 and political domination meant 
 that nine-tenths of the African 
 continent was appropriated by one 
 or other of the European Powers 
 in the forty years from 1875 on- 
 wards. 
 
 Although to many the word 
 “imperialism” may have an ob- 
 jectionable sound, as meaning the 
 exclusive exploitation of raw ma- 
 terials for the benefit of certain 
 countries alone and the right to 
 impose preferential tariffs in the 
 
 [ 3 ] 
 
interests of the occupying Power 
 rather than the natives, there is 
 another aspect of it which we 
 must not lose sight of. Besides 
 such features as these which have 
 been branded as objectionable in 
 many quarters, there were, of 
 course, civilizing influences which 
 accompanied the extension of Eu- 
 ropean political power. Law and 
 order was established. That 
 meant the end of inter-tribal fight- 
 ing and gradually resulted in 
 the break-up of the slave trade. 
 The firmer establishment of Eu- 
 ropean rule aided the extension 
 of missionary work and the be- 
 ginnings of western education, 
 sanitation and public health work. 
 It seems fair to say that the man- 
 dates system was formed to con- 
 serve the beneficial effects of the 
 imperialist movement and to do 
 away with its objectionable fea- 
 tures, or at least to minimize some 
 of them, for the mandates system 
 was, of course, a compromise be- 
 tween idealists and imperialists, 
 and was not the result of a com- 
 plete victory by the former. Be- 
 fore attempting, however, to 
 analyze this mandates system to 
 see to what extent it has attained 
 the objects sought by its found- 
 ers, I should perhaps briefly out- 
 line it and show how it operates. 
 
 The Operation of the System 
 
 The mandated territories are 
 those fourteen different areas 
 
 [ 4 ] 
 
which formerly belonged to Ger- 
 many in the Pacific and in Africa, 
 or comprised the former Arab 
 Provinces of Turkey in the Near 
 East. The mandates were allot- 
 ted, not by the League of Nations 
 but by the Principal Allied and 
 Associated Powers, to certain of 
 the countries which were on the 
 Allied side during the war — Bel- 
 gium, Great Britain, France, 
 South Africa, Australia, New Zea- 
 land and Japan. These Powers 
 are called the Mandatory Powers 
 and they govern under a general 
 responsibility to the League of 
 Nations and in accordance with a 
 definite mandate or conventional 
 arrangement prescribing the way 
 in which the territory is to be ad- 
 ministered. 
 
 In Equatorial Africa, Tangan- 
 yika Territory (formerly German 
 East Africa) was allotted mainly 
 to Great Britain, a small corner in 
 the northwest going to Belgium. 
 The main part of the former Ger- 
 man Cameroons went to France, 
 with a little strip to Great Britain. 
 Togoland was divided between 
 Great Britain and France. These 
 are known as “B” Mandates. 
 
 South West Africa and the 
 islands in the Pacific formerly be- 
 longing to Germany are “C” 
 Mandates. South - West Africa 
 was assigned to the Union of 
 South Africa. Samoa went to 
 New Zealand and New Guinea to 
 Australia ; the little island of 
 Nauru went to the British Em- 
 
 [ 5 ] 
 
pire, and all the former German 
 islands north of the equator — 700 
 of them in all, many of them un- 
 inhabited — went to Japan. As to 
 the “A” Mandates, Syria was al- 
 lotted to France and Palestine to 
 Great Britain, while Iraq has by 
 a special treaty arrangement with 
 Great Britain, which has been 
 sanctioned by the League, been 
 already recognized as to a large 
 extent self-governing, although it 
 remains subject to the guidance 
 of British advisers on important 
 matters as well as to League 
 supervision. 
 
 These fourteen different terri- 
 tories are governed in accordance 
 with a definite “mandate” or char- 
 ter laid down separately in the 
 case of each territory, all the man- 
 dates in each category, however, 
 being similar one to the other. 
 The “A” and “B” mandates pro- 
 vide, inter alia, for equal treat- 
 ment for the commerce of all na- 
 tions Members of the League, and 
 the “B” and “C” categories con- 
 tain a series of stipulations to 
 protect the natives, among other 
 things, against slavery, the liquor 
 traffic and the use of forced labor, 
 except for essential public works 
 and services and then only in re- 
 turn for adequate remuneration. 
 
 A third group of provisions 
 found in all the mandates, and 
 perhaps they are the most impor- 
 tant of all, stipulate that each 
 mandatory power must submit an- 
 nually to the League a report on 
 [ 6 ] 
 
the way in which the administra- 
 tion of each territory has been 
 conducted during the previous 
 year. In accordance with the 
 Covenant these annual reports are 
 sent for examination to the Per- 
 manent Mandates Commission of 
 the League. 
 
 The Permanent Mandates Com- 
 mission is composed of ten* colo- 
 nial experts, acting as individuals 
 not as government representa- 
 tives, and of whom only four are 
 nationals of States which have 
 mandates. It includes a formid- 
 able group of colonial administra- 
 tors who have continuously 
 elected as their chairman, the 
 Marquis Theodoli, formerly Un- 
 der-Secretary of State for the 
 Colonies in Italy. Among its 
 members, for instance, are Sir 
 Frederick Lugard, former Gov- 
 ernor of Nigeria and later Gov- 
 ernor-General of Hong Kong, 
 and M. Martial Merlin, former 
 Governor-General of several of the 
 largest French colonies in Africa 
 and the Far East. Other mem- 
 bers are Professor Rappard, Rec- 
 tor of the University of Geneva, 
 who, though not having had direct 
 colonial experience himself, was 
 Director of the Mandates Section 
 of the Secretariat for the first 
 four years; and Madame Wick- 
 sell, of Sweden, who takes par- 
 ticular interest in questions con- 
 
 * Increased to eleven by the addition in September, 
 1927, of a member of German nationality who is Dr. 
 Ludwig Kastl, formerly Treasurer of South West 
 Africa and now Director of the National Federation of 
 German Industries. 
 
 [ 7 ] 
 
cerning the education and social 
 welfare of the natives. Mr. Van 
 Rees, from the Netherlands, a 
 former high official in the Dutch 
 East Indies, is also on the Com- 
 mission, together with General 
 Freire d’Andrade, perhaps the 
 most distinguished of Portuguese 
 colonial authorities, M. Orts of 
 Belgium, who has had long ex- 
 perience in official and business 
 circles connected with African af- 
 fairs, M. Palacios, Professor of 
 Law and Political Economy at the 
 University of Madrid, and M. 
 Yamanaka, formerly in the Jap- 
 anese diplomatic service. Profes- 
 sor Rappard was succeeded as sec- 
 retary of the Commission by M. 
 Catastini, who had held important 
 positions in the Ministry of the 
 Colonies in Italy. The Commis- 
 sion sits twice a year, each ses- 
 sion lasting two or three weeks. 
 It does not simply take the annual 
 reports of the Mandatory Powers 
 as printed and discuss them pri- 
 vately; it examines them in the 
 presence of a representative of the 
 Mandatory Power, who is sent to 
 give such additional information 
 as may be required. For instance, 
 during the last session the Com- 
 mission questioned Sir Donald 
 Cameron, the Governor of Tan- 
 ganyika, in order to gain a more 
 definite insight into the principles 
 and views of the administrator on 
 the spot with regard to the way in 
 which the largest of the African 
 mandated territories is being gov- 
 [ 8 ] 
 
erned. This cross-examination of 
 the accredited representative of 
 the Mandatory Power is set forth 
 in full in the minutes of the Per- 
 manent Mandates Commission, 
 which give almost a verbatim ac- 
 count of the proceedings and 
 which are available for students 
 who may wish to examine in de- 
 tail the work done to carry out 
 the provisions of Article 22 of the 
 Covenant in so far as the Com- 
 mission is concerned. 
 
 When that examination is over 
 and the representative of the Man- 
 datory Power has withdrawn, the 
 Commission discusses its conclu- 
 sions with regard to the adminis- 
 tration of the territory in question 
 and draws up a report which is 
 sent to the Council of the League, 
 the accredited representative be- 
 ing given an opportunity to com- 
 ment on it. The Report on the 
 Work of the Eleventh Session of 
 the Commission — the latest — was 
 released to the press a few days 
 ago, and I will have occasion in a 
 moment to refer by way of illus- 
 tration to certain interesting pas- 
 sages which it contains. This Re- 
 port will go before the Council 
 for consideration when it meets 
 in September next. The Council 
 normally passes on the observa- 
 tions made by the Commission to 
 the Mandatory Powers con- 
 cerned, asking them to take the 
 requisite action to fulfil the rec- 
 ommendations o r suggestions 
 made by the Commission or to 
 [ 9 ] 
 
explain why it may not be con- 
 sidered possible to do so. 
 
 The work of the League with 
 regard to the execution of Article 
 22 does not end, however, with 
 this formal routine action on the 
 part of the Council or with the 
 replies eventually made by the 
 Mandatory Powers. The Assem- 
 bly each year discusses in its poli- 
 tical committee — the Sixth Com- 
 mittee — the work done during 
 the year by the Mandatory Pow- 
 ers, the Council and the Perma- 
 nent Mandates Commission to 
 carry out Article 22, and so the 
 whole question is put before that 
 forum of public opinion which the 
 Assembly constitutes. 
 
 “Sovereignty” Replaced by 
 “Trusteeship” 
 
 This, in brief, is the mandate 
 system, and it may now be inter- 
 esting to see how, both in theory 
 and in practice, it affects those fea- 
 tures of the old imperialism 
 against which objections had been 
 raised. One of the so-called evils 
 of imperialism was the insistence 
 of the great Powers in securing 
 full sovereignty, exclusive politi- 
 cal rights, in the different terri- 
 tories under their control. That 
 led to a great deal of diplomatic 
 intrigue between the various cap- 
 itals of Europe and this sometimes 
 involved danger of war. When a 
 Power possesses exclusive sover- 
 eignty over a territory there is al- 
 
 [ 10 ] 
 
most inevitably a great risk that 
 in the last resort any decision with 
 regard to the administration of 
 that territory must depend on the 
 interests of the Power in question 
 rather than on those of the native 
 inhabitants of the territory. 
 
 Under the mandates system has 
 the situation been changed? Ex- 
 clusive sovereign rights have cer- 
 tainly been replaced by trustee- 
 ship, a system under which the 
 final decision on any problem con- 
 cerning the administration of 
 these territories should be deter- 
 mined by the interests of the na- 
 tives rather than by those of the 
 Governing Power. It is occasion- 
 ally said, however, that while on 
 the surface there may be a differ- 
 ence, in that the word trusteeship 
 replaces the word sovereignty, 
 this is simply camouflage, and that 
 as a matter of fact these mandated 
 territories have been practically 
 annexed by the great European 
 Powers, and that there is only a 
 formal difference between the 
 new system and the old. On that 
 point I would refer you to the 
 report of the recent session of 
 the Commission. 
 
 One of the most interesting 
 questions which arose at that 
 time, and which had also been 
 dealt with at the previous session, 
 was with regard to the question 
 of sovereignty in so far as it af- 
 fects the territory of South-West 
 Africa, which is under the man- 
 date of the Union of South Africa. 
 
 [ 11 ] 
 
The Union of South Africa, about 
 a year ago, negotiated a treaty 
 with Portugal, which governs An- 
 gola, the territory just north of 
 South West Africa, to settle fin- 
 ally the frontier between the two 
 territories. In the preamble to 
 that treaty it was stated that un- 
 der the mandate the Government 
 of the Union of South Africa, sub- 
 ject to the terms of the mandate, 
 possessed sovereignty over the 
 territory of South West Africa, 
 lately under the sovereignty of 
 Germany, This phrase came to 
 the attention of the Permanent 
 Mandates Commission and they 
 expressed doubt at their session 
 last November as to whether this 
 was the proper way to define the 
 relationship between a Mandatory 
 Power and the territory under its 
 mandate. 
 
 As the Council when consider- 
 ing the report of the Commission 
 in March refrained from express- 
 ing any opinion on this matter, 
 the Government of the Union of 
 South Africa replied that it did 
 not feel that it should make any 
 statement on the point either. At 
 its last meeting, however, the 
 Commission thought it necessary 
 again to bring the matter to the 
 attention of the Council in view 
 of its fundamental importance, 
 and also because the Prime Min- 
 ister of the Union of South Af- 
 rica, in a speech made subsequent- 
 ly in the Union Parliament, up- 
 held the text used in this Treaty. 
 
 [ 12 ] 
 
The Commission concluded by ex- 
 pressing the hope that the Gov- 
 ernment (of the Union of South 
 Africa) “will be so good as to ex- 
 plain whether, in its view, the 
 term ‘possesses sovereignty’ ex- 
 presses only the right to exercise 
 full powers of administration and 
 legislation in the Territory of 
 South West Africa under the 
 terms of the mandate and subject 
 to its provisions and to those of 
 Article 22 of the Covenant, or 
 whether it implies that the Gov- 
 ernment of the Union regards it- 
 self as being sovereign over the 
 territory itself.” 
 
 Here is a definite test case with 
 regard to this important point, and 
 although the question is still in 
 process of solution it shows very 
 clearly that the Permanent Man- 
 dates Commission considers the 
 difference between the legal sta- 
 tus of colonies and mandated ter- 
 ritories to be definite and real.* 
 
 In the same connection it may 
 be interesting to give another il- 
 lustration. In the case of certain 
 mandated territories, for instance 
 
 * On September 8th, 1927, the Council adopted 
 unanimously, representatives of all the Mandatory 
 Powers being present, a significant report which 
 pointed out that the Covenant itself, other articles of 
 the Treaty of Versailles, the mandates, and a series 
 of decisions by the Council on such fundamental 
 points as the national status of the inhabitants of man- 
 dated territories (who are not nationals of the Man- 
 datory Power), the legal position of the former Ger- 
 man State Domain in the territories (which can only 
 he held by the Mandatory Powers in their capacity 
 as such) had already solved this question so far as 
 the substance was concerned, and that any difficulties 
 still existing must be of form only, perhaps due to the 
 use of time-honored terminology which was not ap- 
 propriate to conditions new to international law. 
 
 [ 13 } 
 
French T o g o 1 a n d and New 
 Guinea, former German govern- 
 ment land in the territory was re- 
 ferred to in legislation as State 
 land or Crown land. The Man- 
 dates Commission raised the ques- 
 tion whether the Mandatory 
 Powers considered that this pub- 
 lic land was owned by them in 
 their own right as sovereign pow- 
 ers or in their capacity as Man- 
 datories, i.e., in trust for the na- 
 tives, and the Mandatory Powers 
 agreed that the second theory was 
 the correct one. The Mandates 
 Commission then suggested that 
 as this was the case it would be 
 as well to change the text of the 
 legislation so that in law as well 
 as in its interpretation the situa- 
 tion would be perfectly clear. 
 
 The following quotation from 
 the last report of the Mandates 
 Commission tells the end of the 
 story in the case of French Togo- 
 land : “The Commission notes 
 
 with satisfaction that the Manda- 
 tory Power, by a Decree of March 
 13th, 1926, substituted the phrase 
 ‘domaine du territoire du Togo’ 
 for that of ‘domaine de I’Etat,’ 
 thus conforming with the prin- 
 ciples of the mandate.” Similar 
 changes in legislation have been 
 made by the Australian Govern- 
 ment to abolish the term “Crown 
 land” for public land in New 
 Guinea and to substitute the 
 phrase “land of the territory.” 
 
 [ 14 ] 
 
No National Privileges in Trade and 
 Commerce 
 
 The second point which it is of 
 interest to mention by way of il- 
 lustrating- the effect of the man- 
 dates system on the objections 
 raised against imperialism is with 
 regard to the preferential tariff 
 system which was imposed, at 
 least in many colonial areas, by 
 the Powers in order to provide a 
 surer market for their surplus 
 manufactured goods. I have al- 
 ready alluded to the fact that ex- 
 cept in the case of the “C” Man- 
 dates an open door in the sense 
 of equal economic opportunity is 
 provided for; the mandates re- 
 quire, for instance, that there shall 
 be no discrimination which will 
 make it more difficult for Ameri- 
 can, Danish or Bulgarian goods 
 to enter the Cameroons or Togo- 
 land in W est Africa than for Brit- 
 ish or French goods. 
 
 How has that worked in prac- 
 tice? So well, that the Mandates 
 Commission has had practically 
 no occasion to call attention even 
 to a possible violation of this stip- 
 ulation. In one or two cases 
 there have been legislative texts 
 which did not appear to be abso- 
 lutely in conformity with this 
 principle, but the Mandatory 
 Power was able to explain that 
 in each case the principle was in 
 fact being observed, or that the 
 practice would be made to con- 
 form at once to this requirement. 
 
 [IS] 
 
But although this is the case, the 
 Mandates Commission pays scrup- 
 ulous attention to any action tak- 
 en by the Mandatory Powers 
 which may affect important prin- 
 ciples of this kind, as the follow- 
 ing extract from the last report 
 of the Commission on French To- 
 goland well illustrates : “The Com- 
 mission notes that refunds of cus- 
 toms duties, insurance, wharfage, 
 etc., have been made to two 
 French companies.” (That looked 
 like a special privilege for French 
 business.) “The accredited rep- 
 resentative explained to the satis- 
 faction of the Commission that 
 these are not purely commercial 
 undertakings, but companies en- 
 gaged in experiments of public 
 importance.” 
 
 The Protection of the Native Against 
 
 the Dangers of Industrialization 
 
 A third reproach often levelled 
 against imperialism is that it has 
 brought about the too rapid in- 
 dustrialization of native life. Na- 
 tives are, it is said, made to work 
 in the mines to their physical 
 detriment; industries are built up 
 for the enrichment of the Whites 
 at the expense of the Blacks in 
 Africa. How has the mandates 
 system dealt with that prob- 
 lem? 
 
 As has already been stated, all 
 the “B” and “C” mandates pro- 
 vide definite regulations against 
 the use of forced labor except for 
 
 [ 16 ] 
 
essential public works and ser- 
 vices, and then only when ade- 
 quately paid. It was realized 
 from the beginning that this phase 
 of the work of the Commission 
 was one of the most important 
 and difficult, and one which was 
 bound to grow as time went on. 
 When the Commission was con- 
 stituted, therefore, it was provid- 
 ed that there should sit on it a 
 representative of the Internation- 
 al Labor Office as an expert on 
 labor questions, and in conse- 
 quence it has had the benefit of 
 the collaboration of Mr. H. A. 
 Grimshaw, of the Labor Office, 
 for several years. 
 
 If you look through the reports 
 of the Commission to the Council 
 you will find that from the very 
 start, and more particularly in re- 
 cent years, there is no other sub- 
 ject dealt with so frequently and 
 fully as labor — not only forced 
 labor but conditions of labor in 
 general. An endeavor is made 
 to see that everything possible is 
 done to prevent there being any 
 justification in the charge that in- 
 dustrialization is being pressed too 
 rapidly in mandated territories. I 
 do not mean to imply that there 
 are no abuses in mandated terri- 
 tories, but I wish to call attention 
 to the special efforts made by the 
 Mandates Commission to deal 
 with this particular problem. 
 
 Take, for instance, a few lines 
 from the Report of the Commis- 
 sion on the administration of the 
 
 [ 17 ] 
 
French Cameroons for 1925 : 
 
 . . the Commission will fol- 
 
 low with interest the application 
 of the measures which it is pro- 
 posed to take to improve the san- 
 itary conditions among- the la- 
 borers working on the construc- 
 tion of the central railway. . . 
 and the following concerning 
 French Togoland for the same 
 year: . the Commission 
 
 notes with satisfaction the decla- 
 ration of the accredited represen- 
 tative, that the Administration 
 has no intention of requisitioning 
 labor for the construction, dur- 
 ing the next three years, of the 
 90 kilometres of railroad from 
 Agbonou to Agbandi,” and also 
 in the following year such com- 
 ment as this with reference to 
 Tanganyika: . the Com- 
 
 mission also notes that the Gov- 
 ernor is arranging gradually to 
 replace porterage by motor-trans- 
 port.” 
 
 You will find many other para- 
 graphs dealing with the labor 
 problem throughout this report, 
 in particular among the observa- 
 tions on the little island of Nauru. 
 There the Commission raises the 
 question as to whether the Brit- 
 ish Government might not be able 
 to provide more adequate compen- 
 sation for the Chinese workers 
 imported to dig phosphate who 
 are declared medically unfit for 
 further work and are repatriated 
 to China. 
 
 The Commission has, however, 
 [ 18 ] 
 
not confined itself to dealing with 
 separate concrete cases which may 
 have come to its attention, but at 
 its 6th Session discussed at some 
 length the general question of the 
 necessity of maintaining a just 
 proportion between the rate at 
 which the economic equipment 
 and development of the mandated 
 territories should be proceeded 
 with, and the amount of work 
 which might reasonably be re- 
 quired from the native popula- 
 tion. In consequence of this dis- 
 cussion, the Commission inserted 
 in the list of questions drafted for 
 the use of the Mandated Powers 
 in preparing their annual reports, 
 the following far-reaching and 
 important question: 
 
 “Does the local supply of 
 labor, in quantity, physical 
 powers of resistance and ap- 
 titude for industrial and agri- 
 cultural work conducted on 
 modern lines appear to indi- 
 cate that it is adequate, as far 
 as can be foreseen, for the 
 economic development of the 
 territory? 
 
 “Or does the Government 
 consider it possible that soon- 
 er or later a proper care for 
 the preservation and devel- 
 opment . of the native races 
 may make it necessary to re- 
 strict for a time the establish- 
 ment of new enterprises or 
 the extension of existing en- 
 terprises and to spread over 
 
 [ 19 ] 
 
a longer term of years the 
 execution of such large pub- 
 lic works as are not of im- 
 mediate and urgent neces- 
 sity?” 
 
 This is perhaps the best indica- 
 tion which can be given of the 
 thorough and far-seeing charac- 
 ter of the work done by the Com- 
 mission on this important subject. 
 
 International Inquiry into Charges 
 of Mal-Administration 
 
 The fourth point which I think 
 it would be interesting to deal 
 with in this connection concerns 
 the charge made against imperial- 
 ism of arbitrary and abusive 
 treatment of the natives by offi- 
 cials of the Administration itself. 
 We remember what was said 
 about the Congo in the early days 
 before it had come under the con- 
 trol of the Belgian Government 
 and was still under the personal 
 jurisdiction of the King of the 
 Belgians. Although the “B” and 
 “C” Mandates do not deal in any 
 detailed way with this particular 
 problem, they do stipulate that the 
 Mandatory Power shall promote 
 to the utmost the material and 
 moral well-being and the social 
 progress of the inhabitants, and 
 Article 22 of the Covenant lays 
 down as the cardinal principle of 
 the whole system that the well- 
 being and development of those 
 peoples who are not yet able to 
 stand by themselves under the 
 [ 20 ] 
 
strenuous conditions of the mod- 
 ern world shall form a sacred 
 trust of civilization. 
 
 We have had two outstanding 
 cases where abusive and arbitrary 
 treatment of natives in mandated 
 territories has been alleged. The 
 first case was that of the so-called 
 Bondelzwarts rebellion in South 
 West Africa in 1922, where ma- 
 chine guns had been used by the 
 police and military forces of the 
 Union of South Africa against 
 unarmed natives who had object- 
 ed to paying certain new taxes. 
 The delegate from the Union at 
 the next Assembly announced 
 that his government had decided 
 to make a special inquiry on the 
 spot, the delegate from Haiti in- 
 sisted on the importance of the 
 matter, and the Assembly itself 
 pointed out the necessity of prop- 
 er action in the way of inquiry 
 and relief. 
 
 The report of the special Com- 
 mission of Inquiry was laid be- 
 fore the Mandates Commission by 
 the Administrator of the territory 
 who had been sent all the way to 
 Geneva by the Mandatory Power. 
 The Commission went in great de- 
 tail into the whole situation, ex- 
 pressed their views quite frankly 
 on the action of the agents of the 
 Mandatory Power and paid con- 
 siderable attention to the steps 
 which had been taken to alleviate 
 the situation of those natives who 
 had suffered. 
 
 The other case, which is doubt- 
 [ 21 ] 
 
less more familiar to you, is that 
 of Syria. That is a most instruc- 
 tive story from the point of view 
 of the operation of the mandates 
 system. You will remember that 
 the people called the Druses were 
 never fully conquered even under 
 the Turkish regime and were dis- 
 satisfied with the way in which 
 they were treated by some of the 
 higher French officials early in 
 1925. They started a rebellion and 
 were fortunate enough to over- 
 come the first French force sent 
 against them. The rebellion 
 thereupon spread to Damascus, 
 the seat of the Arab national 
 movement in Syria, where the 
 Arabs had never been very friend- 
 ly to the French administration. 
 The rebellion started in July, and 
 when the Mandates Commission 
 met in Geneva in October it was 
 not clear exactly how serious the 
 situation was, but it was evident 
 that the Mandates Commission 
 would have to deal in an espe- 
 cially thorough manner with the 
 whole problem. The French Gov- 
 ernment submitted a report for 
 the year 1924, but the rebellion 
 was taking place in 1925. The 
 Commission therefore considered 
 it could not spend its time exam- 
 ining a routine report for the pre- 
 vious year at a time when a revo- 
 lution was taking place in the 
 country concerned. They there- 
 fore asked the French representa- 
 tive whether his Government 
 would supply a report on recent 
 [ 22 ] 
 
events at the earliest possible 
 moment. The French represen- 
 tative replied that he was sure his 
 Government would be glad to do 
 so, and the Commission there- 
 fore arranged to hold an ex- 
 traordinary session four months 
 later, in February, 1926, in order 
 to examine this special report on 
 the situation in Syria, 
 
 When the special report came 
 in conditions had improved but 
 little, if at all. The French Gov- 
 ernment sent their accredited rep- 
 resentative, M. de Caix, a former 
 Acting High Commissioner in 
 Syria, to lay the report before the 
 Commission and give supplemen- 
 tary information. The Commis- 
 sion met in Rome and devoted 
 three weeks to Syria alone al- 
 though as a rule it would examine 
 the reports on seven or eight dif- 
 ferent territories in that time. M, 
 de Caix was questioned for two 
 weeks, morning and afternoon, and 
 the Commission went thoroughly 
 into all phases of the administra- 
 tion of the territory and into the 
 causes of and possible remedies 
 for the rebellion there. 
 
 The Commission’s report to 
 the Council was then drawn up. 
 It was a highly critical document, 
 as might have been expected, but 
 no one considered that this was 
 an unfriendly act toward France, 
 for it was recognized that the 
 Commission was simply fulfilling 
 its duty, and in this connection it 
 is important to remember that no- 
 
 [ 23 ] 
 
where had there been more criti- 
 cism of French administration in 
 Syria than in the French Parlia- 
 ment itself, and that the report 
 was adopted unanimously by the 
 Commission on which a member 
 of French nationality was sitting. 
 At the same time the Commission 
 set forth in detail their reasons 
 for recognizing that the difficul- 
 ties facing the French administra- 
 tion in Syria were very great. The 
 population, particularly on ac- 
 count of religious divisions, pre- 
 sented a highly involved problem 
 and once the rebellion had broken 
 out it was realized that there were 
 sound excuses for the taking of 
 forcible measures. The report 
 also made certain suggestions and 
 recommendations as to the action 
 which might be taken to improve 
 the situation. It came before the 
 Council in March, 1926, and M. 
 Paul-Boncour, representing the 
 French Government on the Coun- 
 cil, immediately said in the most 
 sportsmanlike way that he accep- 
 ted the report. 
 
 This document, like other re- 
 ports of the Commission, con- 
 tained certain requests for further 
 information from the Mandatory 
 Power, and when the Commission 
 met again in November last it had 
 before it another and final report 
 on the situation in Syria in 1926, 
 containing almost all the supple- 
 mentary information asked for 
 and satisfactory explanations on 
 many points raised the previous 
 
 [ 24 ] 
 
February. On this occasion, 
 moreover, it received lengthy re- 
 ports of special, independent com- 
 missioners who had been sent out 
 by the French Government, in ac- 
 cordance with an announcement 
 made at the Rome meeting of the 
 Commission, to inquire into the 
 allegations against the Syrian ad- 
 ministration which were contained 
 in the large number of petitions 
 received by the Commission from 
 the committee in Cairo, Egypt, 
 which stated the case for the rev- 
 olutionary element in Syria. 
 
 The Commission found both 
 then at this November meeting 
 and during their conversations 
 with M. de Caix this year that 
 many of the recommendations 
 made by the Commission in Feb- 
 ruary, 1926, had already been car- 
 ried out by the Mandatory Power. 
 It appeared, for instance, that 
 much of the trouble in Syria was 
 due to the fact that the local cur- 
 rency had been linked to the 
 French franc and had therefore 
 depreciated, causing many eco- 
 nomic difficulties. The Commis- 
 sion suggested that it might be 
 well to introduce a more stable 
 currency, and one which would 
 make it easier to build up auton- 
 omy in financial and monetary 
 matters. By November, 1926, the 
 accredited representative of the 
 French Government was able to 
 announce that his Government 
 had taken definite steps in that 
 
 [ 25 } 
 
direction by establishing- the bud- 
 gets for 1927 on a gold basis. 
 
 The Commission also stressed 
 the necessity so far as subordinate 
 French officials were concerned of 
 following the mandate somewhat 
 more strictly in the sense of show- 
 ing the Arab population how to 
 conduct their own government, 
 rather than of imposing on them 
 direct administration by French 
 officials. The reports from the 
 French Government since that 
 time show that there has been a 
 definite movement in the direction 
 of allowing the Arabs not only to 
 administer the country themselves 
 but to work out for themselves 
 the whole constitutional basis for 
 the future administration of the 
 territory. That is very definitely 
 brought out in the last report of 
 the Commission to the Council, 
 where it is said: “The Commis- 
 sion. . . . notes that the framiing 
 of the Organic Law has been de- 
 layed in order that the Syrian and 
 Lebanese authorities may them- 
 selves have an opportunity to 
 work out the constitutional or- 
 ganization of the country.” 
 
 Positive Achievements in the Interests 
 of Native Welfare 
 
 In addition to ivhat may be 
 called the negative work of the 
 mandates system, the way in 
 which it has tended to obviate the 
 objectionable features of imperial- 
 ism, there is also its positive side, 
 
 126 ] 
 
and in ,this respect it has been 
 useful in working out problems 
 in a way which the framers of 
 the Covenant perhaps did not fully 
 contemplate. The evolution of 
 the mandates system is compar- 
 able to that of the League itself. 
 The Covenant deals mainly with 
 negative work, work for the pre- 
 vention of war and to obviate the 
 evils of the past, but the bulk of 
 the work of the League today is 
 not in that field; it is positive 
 work of international co-operation 
 in social, health, economic, finan- 
 cial and transit matters. So also 
 in the operation of the mandates 
 system we find that it acts not 
 only as a check to imperialistic 
 tendencies but as a positive force 
 to improve conditions in the in- 
 terests of the natives. In almost 
 every report of the Commission, 
 for instance, there are several ob- 
 servations concerning public 
 health; and the Commission dis- 
 plays great interest in problems of 
 native administration and the eco- 
 nomic welfare of the inhabitants. 
 A detailed examination on public 
 finance always takes place, to see 
 whether the budgets of the terri- 
 tory are in proper condition and 
 whether its finances are being 
 administered by the Mandatory 
 Power in the interests of the ter- 
 ritory. A great deal of attention 
 is paid to the civilizing work done 
 by missions and to the education- 
 al opportunities offered to the na- 
 tives, as well as to the guarantees 
 
 [ 27 } 
 
given to them so that they may 
 not be deprived of their land. 
 
 I would like to give a few illus- 
 trations of what has been done 
 in this field. For instance, in the 
 budget of the territory of Ruanda- 
 Urundi under Belgian mandate in 
 East Africa, in 1924 there is a 
 heading “Extension of the Medi- 
 cal Service at the request of the 
 Permanent Mandates Commis- 
 sion, salaries for doctors, etc. 
 300,000 francs.” That is a direct 
 recognition by the Mandatory 
 Power of a recommendation made 
 the preceding year by the Man- 
 dates Commission concerning the 
 lack of sufficient public health fa- 
 cilities in that small but densely- 
 populated territory. 
 
 On the question of public 
 finance, the following extract from 
 the report adopted by the Com- 
 mission on the administration of 
 Western Samoa for 1925-6 is typ- 
 ical : “The Commission would ap- 
 preciate such data concerning the 
 wealth and cost of living of the 
 average native as would enable it 
 to form a considered opinion on 
 the burden of taxation imposed on 
 him.” Similar evidence of the 
 positive work of the Commission 
 in seeing that the burden of tax- 
 ation is properly shared by the 
 white and colored populations 
 will be found in its latest obser- 
 vations on Tanganyika. 
 
 In this connection one of the 
 most interesting records of the 
 whole work of the Commission is 
 
 [ 28 ] 
 
contained in the report on its 
 Tenth Session when for the first 
 time the administration of Iraq 
 was examined and at which the 
 policy followed by the British 
 Government was set forth by its 
 accredited representative as fol- 
 lows: “Iraq government for the 
 Iraqi and by the Iraqi, helped by 
 small numbers of British advisers 
 and inspectors.” The Commis- 
 sion says: “This statement made 
 by the accredited representative’*' 
 could not but make a favorable 
 impression on the Commission.” 
 
 Some Conclusions 
 
 I have tried to bring out the 
 negative work of the Commission 
 in preventing the recurrence of 
 some of the objectionable fea- 
 tures of imperialism, and also its 
 positive work in stimulating the 
 Mandatory Powers to adopt the 
 highest possible standards in car- 
 rying out the provision of the 
 mandates to the effect that they 
 shall promote to the utmost the 
 material and moral well-being and 
 social progress of the inhabitants. 
 I have sketched very briefly the 
 procedure of international super- 
 vision exercised by the League of 
 Nations especially through the 
 Mandates Commission. None of 
 us who are intimately familiar 
 with the operation of the- system 
 would contend that it is perfect. 
 
 * Which is not quoted in full in this paper. 
 
 [ 29 ] 
 
A great many proposals for its 
 revision have been made, officially 
 and unofficially. It has been sug- 
 gested, for instance, that petition- 
 ers whose written complaints are 
 now received by the Commission 
 might be allowed to appear and 
 give oral evidence, also that a 
 more rigid list of questions than 
 those contained in the Question- 
 naires of 1921 might be used by 
 the Mandatory Powers in order 
 that the information given to the 
 League each year might be more 
 complete, and again that it might 
 be well for the Mandates Com- 
 mission to visit mandated terri- 
 tories to secure for themselves a 
 more intimate knowledge of con- 
 ditions in the different territories. 
 Some of these proposals have al- 
 ready been rejected by the com- 
 petent League authorities, and 
 whether any of them will be ac- 
 cepted, and to what extent the 
 mandates system will have to be 
 altered in the future, it is impos- 
 sible to say. The fact that these 
 points are coming up, however, 
 shows that the situation is still in 
 the pioneering stage and has not 
 become irretrievably bureaucratic 
 and iron-clad. 
 
 Although there may be objec- 
 tions to certain aspects of the sys- 
 tem as it stands foday, it does 
 seem to me there is general agree- 
 ment on the value of certain of 
 its features. In the first place, I 
 think it is true to say that the 
 mandates system has definitely 
 
 [ 30 ] 
 
countered the principal objections 
 raised against imperialism and is 
 a safeguard against the abuses 
 which sometimes accompanied the 
 exploitation of backward areas 
 during the last half of the Nine- 
 teenth century. It may be asked, 
 however, why if that is true the 
 great Powers still want mandates 
 or are willing to accept mandate 
 responsibility. 
 
 I wonder whether this desire 
 for mandates means that certain 
 of the old features of imperialism 
 — the right to impose preferential 
 tariffs, to the exclusive exploita- 
 tion of raw materials, to unlimited 
 sovereignty and the right to use 
 backward areas as an outlet for 
 surplus population — are of practi- 
 cally no value after all, and that, 
 therefore, the imposition of the 
 mandates system has not proved 
 so detrimental to the national in- 
 terests of the Trustee Powers as 
 is commonly supposed. This is 
 a larger problem than we can at- 
 tempt to discuss today but a very 
 fascinating one indeed, and I 
 would refer those interested in it 
 to “Imperialism and World Poli- 
 tics” by Prof. Parker T. Moon of 
 Columbia University. 
 
 In the second place the man- 
 dates system through the very full 
 reports published annually by the 
 Mandatory Powers (which may 
 be contrasted with the non-exist- 
 ence or with the briefer or more 
 irregular appearance of reports on 
 colonies and protectorates), and 
 [ 31 ] 
 
the Minutes of the Mandates 
 Commission, is constantly making 
 more and more knowledge avail- 
 able concerning the conditions of 
 life among native peoples, and the 
 problems attendant upon the ad- 
 ministration of the districts they 
 inhabit. 
 
 Thirdly, the mandates system 
 has set up a definite and high 
 standard of colonial administra- 
 tion which will almost inevitably 
 be used as a standard by which to 
 judge all other efforts to govern 
 so-called backward areas. The 
 mere setting up of such a standard 
 is a great step in advance. In ad- 
 dition the mandates system pro- 
 vides a method of checking, lim- 
 iting and remedying abuses which 
 might not be so effectively dealt 
 with otherwise. It also does posi- 
 tive work by encouraging Man- 
 datory Powers to the highest 
 achievement by giving them an 
 opportunity, through the Man- 
 dates Commission, the Council 
 and the Assembly, to let the world 
 know what they have done in the 
 interests of the natives, in public 
 health work, education and the 
 building up of self-government in 
 these territories. 
 
 Fourthly, the mandates system 
 constitutes in the broad sense a 
 court of appeal for the natives and 
 those interested in their welfare 
 in other parts of the world against 
 the administrative authority it- 
 self; fifthly, it affords a certain 
 amount of protection to the Man- 
 
 C32} 
 
datory Powers against unjust crit- 
 icism of their administration, and 
 thus helps to strengthen their po- 
 sition by giving them the support 
 of an impartial board of inquiry, 
 and finally, it places the Powers 
 who have accepted as trustees the 
 duty of guiding the evolution of 
 more primitive peoples in a posi- 
 tion of responsibility to the na- 
 tions of the world as a whole, and 
 at the same time insures for them 
 the collaboration of the forces at 
 the disposal of the League. 
 
 These are six points which oc- 
 cur to me as illustrating in the 
 abstract some of the advantages 
 of the mandates system. Perhaps 
 the situation would be even clear- 
 er if we were to think for a mo- 
 ment in the concrete. Compare, 
 for instance, Portuguese Africa, 
 with its preferential tariffs, with 
 French Cameroons, where they 
 are prohibited and where the door 
 for trade and commerce is open 
 on equal terms to all nations; or 
 the situation in Syria and the very 
 rigid examination of the adminis- 
 tration of that area while the in- 
 surrection was in progress with 
 the situation in the Philippines, 
 where at times the American au- 
 thorities have been under fire for 
 their practices and their methods, 
 and where it would be impossible 
 for the administration of the ter- 
 ritory or for the authorities in 
 Washington, who are responsible, 
 to be in any way subject to super- 
 vision by an international board of 
 
 [ 33 ] 
 
experts such as the Mandates 
 Commission of the League, I be- 
 lieve that if we look in some such 
 way not only at the theoretical 
 but at the practical differences 
 between the government of man- 
 dated and non-mandated terri- 
 tories we will have a clear picture 
 of what the mandates system 
 really is. 
 
 This pamphlet contains material 
 of value and inspiration to all who 
 are interested in international rela- 
 tions today. When you have fin- 
 ished reading it, pass it along to a 
 friend, with the request that the 
 recipient do likewise. 
 
 [ 34 ]