COOK ISLAND AFFAIRS.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1020, 9 January 1911, Page 6

COOK ISLAND AFFAIRS.

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, AND OTHER MATTERS. [Td the Editor.] Sir,—Since tho arrival of The Dominion of the 25th, things have developed some. The island is still where it was—for this we must alono bo thankful. Tho Inspector of Police has, however, "got the order of the boot," though the nails were drawn by the report of tho letter road in Parliament. I think I am safe in saying that tho sympathy of all decent Europeans is with him, and this act of tho Resident Commissioner has caused considerable indignation. The inspector has, during his nine months of office, carried out his duties in a most impartial manner, both among Europeans aud natives. Ho has made a great effort to acquire l the native language, and has succeeded in winning their confidence aud respect, duo to a great extent to this alone and by his unfailing attention to duty. As far as the public are aware tho alleged "hostility" is the only reason 'for his dismissal. It seems a pity that a more plausible excuse could not be found, aud one which could bo more easily swallowed. However, the decree has gone forth, and we must "grin and bear if," as that line old v£rse has it. No doubt the next inspector will be more discreet in his choice of friends, and not bo seen within 100 j-ards. of those who do not approve of the present Administrator. I may state that I hold no brief for tho dismissed officer. Tho R.C. did not sea fit-to ask the Inspector of Police ,to state that he (Sir. Smith) 'was "all it," but what was to prevent him from obtaining the opinion of the Inspector of Roads, Inspector of Dog Licenses, the Tide Waiter, and Swiueherder. Why were not these given a chance of admittance to tho happy family? It seems a pity that a Louis Stevenson or some such island expert were not here to write up tho idiosyncracies of local administration. I have not yet heard of a coat of arms for Rarotonga, but no doubt were such ■to be provided a most apt motto would be "Pigs for Popularity." I note in Dr. Chcsson's letter to the Minister that ho says ho has had experience of the natives in Vavau. May I ask how long ho was there,, and why lie left? Dr. Cliesson states that the_ natives were coming freely to the Hospital, and that if Dr. Dawson had not returned "this unpleasant state of thinjjs would not have arisen." Why should Dr. Chosson object to professional opposition: has lie a monopoly of the Islands? Dr. Ches-' son says that so long as Dr. Dawson is in the islands, no other doctor can suit their demands. We can quite see- that as Dr. Chesson says it would be a great mistake for the Minister to listen to the natives' petition, for if he did so some people would be minus his billet! The "Challenger" for my early "deport" to New Zealand, please.— I am, etc., RURU.

IN REPLY TO MR. GLOVER, M.P. Sir,—Mr. Glover, M.P., having made certain statements in the House regarding myself I beg leave through your co"I----uiiins to refute some of his statements, and to demonstrate that Mr. Glover's "facts" are of somewhat woeful appearance when viewed in the light of truth. . In Hansard No.' 39," Page 476, there is to bo found the sratoment that -I am believed by Mr. Glover to be a" travelling dentist wlio lias made exorbitant charges which the Resident Commissioner would not allow. This is absolutely untrue

... and I defy Mr.. Glover to produce any evidence that 1 have cither travelled these islands professionally, or that I have chnTged .exorbitantly,, or that the 1 commissioner, has "disallowed" ! any charge I have made foj my : work. I'would point out to Mr. Glover that, at any rate the commissioner has never had a case before him over any of my charges for work, and that is the only .way in which Mr. Smith could have any chance" of disallowing any of iny charges. It is sufficient to shy that people.arc coming here to have their dental work attended to on account of the higher charges rulinj in Tahiti.

With regard to the remark from Mr, Glover as reported in Hansard, -Page 1019, No. ;15, respecting a letter that I wrote to him, I think that you will agree with mo when I say that there has 'been an attempt to use a half-truth for other ends. That the letter is marked private precluded me from forwarding a copy to you bofore. 'but since Mr. Glover has both' referred to it in tho Houso and has not been pqlite enough to reply to it, I have not the .slightest compunction in asking you to publish either all or part of it as you may think fit.

To further traverse Mr. Glover's remarks in Hansard No. 45, it would afford the people of this : gtoup. gome satisfaction if Mr. Glover would auswe r the following questions now that Jie. has presumably lots of'spare time* seeing that his hours of humorous speech-making are terminated for the time being. 1. "Who arc Mi a royalties *et forth in his speech ns of Man<:aia, Aitutaki, Atiu, Maokr, and Mitiaro? \ ' 2. Since when were the Arikis or chiefs . of priestly descent or .otherwise promoted or recognised as kings of these various islands? 3. How did Mr. Glover communicate with all these potentates as apart from' Mangaia. and Aitutaki —there was no mail communication . with those' islands between _ the appearance of the first interview in The Dominion and the' famous aud laughable /speech in the House of November 25?— at least no mail that wo ,havo been able .to locate. 4. Has Mr. "Glover an aeroplanb service v;ith the Islands? 5. Has not the hop., member, for Auck- : land .Central done the Inlands of Pukapuka, Manuae, Takutea, Suwarrow, Penrlivn. Maiden, 'Manihiki, PakaTtanga. Morokai, not to.mention the lagoon-inlets of Aitutaki and the nnarantine island of Knrotonea (and the North Pole) an absolute and grave injustice in not at least mentioning their names and the names of thoir kings? G. Does Mr. Glover think that because 3l nder (118 rule of the so-called liberal Government the people will be properly astounded at fhe nrrav of principalities included-in their-bord-ers. and will stop this very improper agitation for proper administration of tie law parts? 7" Does Mr. Glover really wish us to behove thnt-IHMs an authority on the matters in this island? 8. And if so i jvill ho state for the edification and enlightenment of the British and (ither races exactly hoiv maiiv nunutes he has spent in the whole of the Cook Group, in, say, the last two years? -

Till Mr. Glover answers all of these questions he is invited to occupy a seat on the side track. I am, etc. . RUPERT V. HOSKING. Avarua, December 29. ' [Enclosure.] ' (Marked "Private" in Original.) November 28th,'.1910. A. E.'Glover, Esq., M.P., House of Representatives, Wellington, Sir,—My attention having been drawn to your remarks on p. .476 Hansard \o 39, November 9, 1910, I have deemed* it necessary to write you in that connection. As I believe you have not been in Rarotonga for some months, and as you have no knowledge of myself personally, it stands to reason that wheii you referred to my having madn extortionate charges which the Resident Commissioner would not allow, you must havo obtained this statement on the authority of some other person. I am, therefore, desirous of- knowing the person's name, and will be glad if you will supply 1110 therewith Hint I may tike action against him that I cannot take Drains a member of the honourable House (to which you have been elected), who is, of course, protected by "Parliamentary. privilege" in all his statements. My reason for taking action is that this statement .you havo promulgated and disseminated is absolutely contrary to fact, and a statement calculated to injure me bolli in mv private and professional capacitv. Probably you were sincere in your belief, and regret your remarks, and I should be glad to be apprised of. this latter if it is so.

I have further to- inform you that I have forwarded papers to Wellington which, when published, will, I think, tend to convert you to the opinion that your position as a well-informed man, on the subject of Rarotongan affairs at least, is 011 c that has become untenable. Wherefore I would suggest that you should improve your position on Rarotongan matters by reading 'The Domikion with

careful regularity, as well as Hansard. This, of course, I put forward only as a suggestion. In oonclusion I again state that your remarks were founded on an insecure basis, the foundations of which were not in existence—and are therefore not in accordance with fact. All communications should be addressed to me at Rarotonga, for which place I am leaving shortly.—Faithfully yours, Rupert V. Hosking.