Grand Forks herald. [volume] (Grand Forks, N.D.) 1916-1955, 1920-12-18
Serious ! Charges Made By
Balfour; Lively Debate
sesults When Lord Robert
Cecil Lead, Attack On
Council !! q For J! Refusal To
. Send 5! ! Text OF The Variou.
u . Mandates. !. s.:5..$ &

d
l$ Geneva, Dec. ls. tBy the Asso-s
sciated Press THE first assembly OF.
the League Of Nations, which has
been in session here since November
-, adjourned it's sessions 1t e:3Q
O'Clock this evening. .i.s (, /. .ss
Balfour Makes Charges.
Ne Charges by A.. J. Ralfour, British
member Of the council of the League
Of Nations, that an attempt was being
made IN assembly circles to coerce
the council on the question of man
dates featured 9 spirited debate in
the assembly Of the league here today.
The assembly adopted the report OF
dts mandate, committee which declared
the council had adopted such q policy
regarding mandates that there was no
opportunity to discuss them publicly
before they went into force. The res
port also declared against the recruits
in territories they were administer
ing and against the cxploitating of the
natural resources Of such territories
for the benefit of the mandatory
powers. - I'd
/ The attack upon the, council was
led by Lord Robert Cecil who crtti-
cised sthe councils refusal to COM
the various mandates for the admin
istration of former German colonies.
Lord Robert was followed by. c. j.
Doherty OF Canada, who expressed the
disappointment felt by the Canadian
delegates that no opportunity had
bean given the assembly to examine
the mandates.
'.There will be no better test of the
sincerity of the league than the terms
Of the mandates and the manner in
which they are expected" he said.
NJ, Mr.. Doherty warned the council OF
the gravity of the responsibility 1t had
assumed in withholding the mandates
from publicity.
Defends Council.
Mr.! Balfour came to the defense OF
the council. The danger, he said, was
not in the terms or the manner of ex-
!. ecution of the mandates, but in the
{ liability ofithe assembly tOscome into
conflict with the council which alone
he held, was Intended by the trainers
of the covenant to have jurisdiction
over mandates. X
:sI shall not feel bound, nor will my
successor, In the council feel bound
by anything this assembly or any 9th.
.er assembly shall do" he cried.
Many delegates appeared non
i plussed by Mr.. Balfour's defiant at.
& atitude particularly when he referred
!. to ss.the Jealous spirit shown by some
Of the sspaakeEssaA And when he de.
Y 3Elared that the Recommendations p1
the Matid ties com r.aMtttee n 4 Ateotnted, te
lllI1l1l e ssrs s' - y ''.'' ssonn
{, II. ord Robert Cecil retorted that The
assembly had adopted the report q
ths reiations Of the council and thu
assembly, in which it was declarel
the assembly could examine an,
Question that came within the com
petence of the league. Il
Leon Bourgeois. French member O
the council, supported the viewpoin
o. Mr.. Balfour, his British colleague
on that body. u:
Adoption by the assembly of tn.
. Observation-Disclosures the committed
followed the debate, s4
gA The Armenian committee reported
that It han not sufficient time to fin
: ish It's task before the close of thu
assembly. 1t pointed out that tn
measure which seemed to the com
nittee most likely to- succeed, wa
that the: Arnenians be organized aIat
equipped for their own defense. Th'
committee proposed that the counci
. appoint. another committee to con
rinue exa minations Of the question.