SAMOA.

Press, Volume LXIII, Issue 19180, 10 December 1927, Page 14

SAMOA.

♦- —— COMMISSION'S REPORT. ADMINISTRATOR VINDICATED. SOME "MATTERS OF POLICY."

The report of the lloyal Commission concerning the administration of Western Samoa has been circulated. It is a document of forty-three folio printed pages. The Commission was set up as the result of complaints made to the Government of- New Zealand concerning the administration of the territory, certain of such complaints being set forth in a petition presented to Parliament last session. An investigation of these complaints was commenced by a Parliamentary Committee, but later at the request of the Administrator, Sir George Eicbardson, a Commission was dispatched to Samoa to hear evidence on the spot, and to report on the subject matter of the complaints. The members of the Commission were: Sir Charles Skerrett, Chief Justice, aud Judge MacCormack, of the New Zealand Native Land Court. Scope of Enquiry. They were asked to report <>n the following questions:— (1) Whether, having regard to the duties undertaken by the Government of New Zealand under the said Mandate, there is just or reasonable causo for such complaints or objections. (2) Whether the Administrator or the officials of the Administration have in any manner exceeded their duty in the exercise of the authority entrusted to them respectively, or have failed to exercise their respective functions honestly and justly. (3) Whether, having regard to the Samoan native customs and to the due maintenance of government and order in the mandated territory, it would be prudent and safe to wholly repeal and abrogate all power to require a Samoan to remove, for a definite period from one place on" the islands to another. Matters of Policy. As stated already, the report is voluminous, but in respect of some of the more interesting of the questions which were raised before the Commission at the enquiry, it stops short of being interesting. For instance, one of the complaints of the disaffected persons in Samoa was against the Prohibition decree of the New Zealand Legislature affecting Samoa. The Commissioners state with respect to this that: "The. Prohibition is statutory, and the Administrator must, of course, respect and enforce it. The consideration of this matter is not within the scope of the enquiry which, we were directed to hold, and we are not entitled to express an opinion upon it. ...... It appears clear that the legislation has proved effective to prevent so far as could reasonably be expected, the consumption of intoxicating liquor by Samoans." Copra.

The complaint relating to the action taken by the Administration in making advances to native growers of copra, and acting as agent in the sale of such copra, is discussed at great length. The Commissioners state quite definitely the opinion that before the Administration came to the assistance of the native growers, these growers had to accept such prices as the traders offered, and that the traders, before making offers, agreed among themselves as to the prices they would pay. The traders paid only one price whatever the quality of the product; so long as it was certified as fit for export they would accept it, and they would not pay more for copra of better quality. There was no competition among the traders, and there was no incentive to the natives to improve the quality of their product. The Administrator devised and put into operation a plan to assist the natives in the sale of copra, and the Commissioners state: "It is the possible extension of this, or the adoption of some similar but more extensive scheme, which has alarmed the traders." Only LOO tons of native copra were dealt with under the scheme., and there are 1200 tons of native copra produced m Western Samoa. The advances-made to the grower were from £l6 Is 5d to £l6 16s, and the copra was sold in London for £27 and £2B. The Commissioners remark: We think that the results have shown that the Samoans are quite capable of producing high-grade copra which will command a good price in European markets. The value of the scheme, to our minds, lies in its providing an incentive to the Samoans to use care and attention in the preparation of copra for export, and the provision of a reward for the exercise of industry and attention, to j which thev are not very accustomed. We think that it may be hopefully anticipated that the adoption of the scheme will assist in inculcating habits of industry and care in the Samoans. As we have pointed out, the sale of copra is the only way by which they can provide themselves with ready cash, and the obtaining of a good price for copra will, therefore, be a very desirable thing for them." The complaints of the traders were in effect that the scheme was an improper interference with private enterprise, that the Administrator made advances which were too generous, aud that if the Administrator should undertake the marketing of copra extensively it must mean the elimination of the trader, involving the loss of capital in trading stations. The Commissioners state: "Wc have arrived at the conclusion that the syirem adopted bv the Administrator was a pure measure of policy, and does not jcome within the scope of our enquiry." They make a number of observations on the scheme, however, which seem to indicate that they did not consider the action of the Administrator in any degree improper. Alleged Extravagance. The charges of extravagance in the expenditure of the Public Revenues of the Territory are also discussed at length. The Commissioners state that all the evidence adduced to support these charges, notably, a report compiled by Mr E. W. Gurr and Mr A. G. Smyth,"was so incorrect as to be worthless. They add that: "Nothing was elicited in evidence, which would justify us in thinking that the Administration was overstaffed or was otherwise extravagant." As to the action of the Mau, in reference to these charges of extravagance, and the use of them in a public meeting attended largely by Samoans, the Commissioners express disapproval though in restrained terms. Mr Nelflon. By long quotations from the evidence", the Commissioners show their opinion of Mr Nelson. On September Ist, 1926, Mr Nelson had an interviewin Wellington with the Prime Minister

land the Minister for External Affairs, at which it was arranged that Mr Nosworthv should yisit Samoa. When ho rei turned to Samoa on September 24th, Mr Nelson did not inform the Administrator of the interview. On September 2Gth a public reception was given to Mr Kelson at Apia, and at that meeting the Administrator made, in a speech, liighlv eulogistic references to Mr A elson, 'in replv, Mr Nelson made even more eulogistic, not to say fulsome, references to the Administrator. Mr Nelson had before that reception had a conference with a few of his colleagues, and arranged for the holding of a public meeting which had to do with the charges he had made in his interview at Wellington against the Administrator. This meeting, as many witnesses stated, marked the beginning of a serious disaffection among Samoans. Commenting on all this the Commissioners say: "The conduct so disclosed, we think, is properly subject to animadversion." Objects of the Mau. As to the Mau the Commission state that apparently it had two purposes, to secure practically self-government for the Samoans, and to frustrate and render ineffective the functioning of the Administration. As a result of the influence of the Mau there was an organised refusal to obey the laws and regulations, to recognise the authority of the Faipules, and to destroy the rhinoceros beetle. It was apparently easy to lead the Samoans. Following is a short extract from the evidence of Captain Bell. Are the Samoans prone to follow in any new venture or new experiment?— Yes. If I started a Salvation Army movement here, there would not be a mission native in the place. That is because of the novelty of the thing, and because of the big drum? —Yes. The Administrator. Much of the report deals with the alleged dictatorship of the Administrator. Most of the complaints referred to details which seem of little moment at this distance. On all of them except possibly one of exceeding suiallness, the Commissioners found for the Administrator and against the Mau. Banishments. As to the local banishment orders, the Commissioners have a good deal to say. They point out that this form of punishment was general among _ the natives of Samoa before the imposition upon them of European sovereignty, that after the establishment of European Government, first by the Germans and later by the British, the Samoans not only countenanced such banishments, but invoked the aid of the Government in ordering and enforcing them against rebellious or troublesome members of their own communities. The Commissioners state with reference to the banishment orders against members of the Mau:

"We are satisfied that these orders were made upon a proper procedure, and that no objection can bo made to them. We arc wholly unable to see that, in the circumstances which obtained, the Administrator was not justified in exercising such powers as he possessed to discourage the organisation of the Mau and to compel the dispersal of the Natives to 1 their respective homes. It is clear to us that the Administrator was right in hia opinion that the organisation of the Mau as understood and used by the Natives could not exist alongside of and concurrently with the administration of the country under the mandate. One or other must give way." The Commissioners also state: "We are of opinion that it is not prudent or safe to wholly. repeal the power of local banishment, which we are considering; and further, that no demand exists for such' a repeal. The of "course, ought to be exercised with wisdom and caution."