parents, the adoptive child is entitled to succeed to the whole, or portion (if other children) of the deceased's estate. The writer knows of a number of cases in which an adopted child (or "Tamaiti Whangai") has become exceedingly wealthy in this way.

The numerous cases in which Maoris still apply for orders of adoption, and the far more numerous cases in which children are still adopted in accordance only with Maori custom, testify to the love of the Maori race for children (" tamariki ''), even though the need for strengthening the tribe or sub-tribe has in recent years passed away. The Maori makes it a point of honour to see that no orphan or destitute child is left without a good home, and in this respect, as in many others, might well be held to teach a needed lesson to the "Pakeha," or European.

MANDATES.

[Contributed by PROFESSOR BERRIEDALE KEITH, D.C.L.]

Allocation of Mandates. -The simplest of the many problems arising from the adoption of the mandatory system is that of their allocation and the legal title of the mandatories. The Treaty of Peace with Germany provides in a perfectly explicit manner answers to both these questions, so far as concerns the territories, formerly in the hands of Germany, to which the system has been made applicable. By Article 119 of the Treaty Germany renounced in favour of the principal allied and associated Powers all her rights over her oversea possessions, and thus left it in their hands to determine the disposal of these territories, subject always to the understanding as to the future of these territories embodied in Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, which is an essential part of the Treaty of Peace. By that Article, again, it was contemplated that the tutelage of the peoples formerly governed by Germany should be entrusted to advanced nations, to be exercised by them as mandatories on behalf of the League of Nations. The power of allocation was thus given absolutely to the principal allied and associated Powers, while the mandate once allocated was to be exercised by the mandatory for the League.

In harmony with the system thus indicated the principal allied Powers agreed on the allocation of certain mandates, and the Council of the League of Nations on December 17, 1920, confirmed and defined, in terms previously agreed upon by these Powers, mandates for German South-West Africa to the Union of South Africa, for German Samoa to New Zealand, for Nauru to His Britannic Majesty, for the other German possessions in the Pacific south of the Equator to the Commonwealth of Australia, and for the German possessions north of the Equator to Japan. Formally, as regards all the Powers, members of the League of Nations, the action of the Council, not having been challenged by the Assembly,1

1 On the ambiguity of the respective powers of the Council and Assembly see Assembly document 246, pp. 2, 6, 8.

must be regarded as definitely disposing of all questions of title, but the matter, it is clear, stands otherwise as regards those Powers which are not members of the League or bound to accept the decisions of the League, and in special as regards the United States of America. It is thus legitimate for the United States to adopt, as has been done, the attitude that the question remains entirely open as far as her interests are concerned, and that she need not recognise the mandates in these cases, unless and until she is satisfied that their terms are not inconsistent with her rights.' The entire novelty of the scheme of mandates renders it impossible to frame any complete reply to the United States' contention, and it has been felt necessary to postpone for the time being, pending exchanges of views between the principal allied Powers and the United States, the definite allocation of the mandates regarding the remaining German possessions in Africa, Togoland, the Cameroons and East Africa. De facto, agreements between France and the United Kingdom have determined the portions of Togoland and the Cameroons to be held by either Power, while East Africa has been divided between the United Kingdom and Belgium,' but in none of these cases is there yet the formal authority of mandates confirmed by the League of Nations, although perforce administration has for years been carried on by the Powers interested.

In the case of the Turkish territories which fell to be surrendered by Turkey under the terms of the Treaty of Sèvres, the position remains yet more anomalous. Pending the ratification of that Treaty it was agreed at San Remo between the British and the other allied Governments that mandates should be allocated to the United Kingdom for Mesopotamia and Palestine and a mandate to France for Syria and the Lebanon, and a Franco-British convention of December 23, 1920, provides for the boundaries of the French and British mandates and for certain economic relations concerning them. The failure of Turkey to ratify the Treaty of Sèvres has relegated to the future the possibility of the formal grant of the mandates, and France has concluded with the de facto Government of Angora an agreement which contemplates the tenure by France of her Syrian mandate on terms not yet sanctioned by the League of Nations. Despite the lack of formal title, however, the United Kingdom in her mandated territories has already exercised large powers of government, and in particular has created

1 Compare Parl. Pap. Cmd. 1226.
2 Parl. Pap. Cmd. 1350, pp. 2-10.

Ibid., Cmd. 1284 and 1428.
Ibid., Cmd. 1195, articles 1 and 2.

a Kingdom of Iraq out of the Mesopotamian territory, a step taken, on the ground of urgency, without consulting the League of Nations, although that body had been asked to assent to the proposal that an organic law should be framed for the territory and should be submitted for the approval of the Council of the League. Strictly speaking, the rights of both the United Kingdom and of France in regard to Turkish territory rest on the fact of conquest and occupation alone. Moreover, in any settlement it is essential that due regard be had to the contentions of the United States, which maintains that nothing in any mandate must impose any disadvantage in matters of commerce or trade upon citizens of the United States. Determination of the Terms of the Mandates. - Neither the League Covenant nor the other portions of the Treaty of Peace with Germany provide explicitly as to the mode in which the terms of each mandate are to be laid down. Article 22 of the Covenant provides that "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." The provision, unhappily, is hopelessly obscure, for there is nothing to explain the signification of the term " members of the League." The only interpretation of the term on a strictly legal basis is that of Lord Robert Cecil which refers it to the Assembly; but it must be admitted that this cannot have been the intention of the provision, since there is a manifest absurdity in thus disposing of the issue. The principal allied and associated Powers doubtless meant the term to refer to themselves alone among the signatories of the Treaty of Versailles and the members of the League of Nations, and in practice they have thus interpreted the position, subject to the decision of the United States to accept no share in the matter. It is, however, clear that the Council has the right to intervene in the event of undue delay on the part of the allied Powers, and the matter might have been made the subject of the intervention of the Council in 1921, had not the whole issue been complicated by the objection of the United States to any steps to grant mandates until its views had been fully met.

Even, however, if the allied Powers have agreed on the terms of the mandates, it is clear that it lies with the Council to consider whether the terms thus agreed upon are in harmony with the pro

Parl. Pap. Cmd. 1500, p. 3, Art. 1.

The Times, July 1, 1920. Compare M. Hyman's report to the League of Nations, Assembly Document 161, p. 16; Keith, War Government in the Dominions, PP. 194, 195.

visions of Article 22 of the Covenant. It does not seem that the Council has the right to decline to confirm a mandate because it would have preferred some other terms, unless it is satisfied that the terms proposed actually run counter to the provisions of the article, and in the mandates so far formally confirmed the congruence of the terms and the Article has been close and patent.

The Three Classes of Mandates. - The simplest form, and the only one so far to have obtained formal confirmation by the League, is the "C" type, applicable to South-West Africa and the islands of the Pacific. These territories, owing to sparseness of population, or small size, or remoteness from centres of civilisation, or geographical contiguity to the territory of the mandatory, are deemed suitable for administration under the laws of the mandatory as integral portions of its territory, subject to certain safeguards in the interests of the native population. The provision of the Covenant is strange and ambiguous; its origin affords an explanation, in so far as it represents a compromise between the demands of the interested parties for complete annexation and the mandate principle upheld by the President of the United States. In point of fact, it has been interpreted in the Commonwealth of Australia, New Zealand and the Union of South Africa as implying a virtual annexation, a view presumably held also by His Majesty's Government, and by Japan in respect of her mandated territory. The issue is of the highest importance precisely in respect of German South-West Africa. The Prime Minister of the Union has repeatedly emphasised the view that the German settlers there must dismiss the idea that the mandate implies a separate existence for the territory, and must accept the doctrine that its fate is indissoluble connection with the rest of the Union territory. Yet this theory finds no countenance in the terms of Article 22, which deals with the system of mandates as applicable to "peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world." In mandates of the class "A" type, such as those for Mesopotamia and Palestine, it is frankly recognised that the mandate cannot be for ever, and on principle there seems no ground for asserting that the other mandates are in their nature irrevocable.

2

A further serious difficulty presents itself as regards the conditions, subject to which the exercise of the rights of the mandatories are to be exercised. What are the safeguards in the interests of