THE SAMOAN DEVELOPMENT.

Evening Star, Issue 19658, 10 September 1927, Page 6

THE SAMOAN DEVELOPMENT.

The latest action of the Hon. O. F. Nelson threatens to reduce the Samoa Commission to a fiasco. In his first comment on the order of reference of the Commission Mr Nelson seemed to imply that, provided it was not too narrowly interpreted, it would be satisfactory, except for its exclusion of the European deportation law as a subject for.consideration. Immediately on the heels of that qualified approval came the announcement that he had instructed his solicitors to lodge a protest with the Government against the limits of the inquiry, and the shortness of time allowed to get witnesses and evidence. Now, after correspondence with the Government, it is announced that neither.Mr Nelson nor the other parties to the petition heard recently by the joint committee of both Houses will appear*, be represented, or call evidence before the Commission, owing to grievances which they feel against its scope and the precipitancy of its programme. Jhey are not satisfied that the. inquiry

would include charges concerned with the Prohibition and, opium laws- which “os-officials now resident in New Zealand,” more than Mr Nelson, jit would appear, are concerned now to bring forward. If any officials under the Prohibition regime have been smuggling liquor and getting drunk on it we should think that came very definitely under the clause which inquires whether they have “ failed to exercise their respective functions honestly and justly-” The smuggling and the drinking, supposing them to exist, would be unlikely to be confined to them or to make a great grievance of the Samoans. Wo should have preferred the order, of reference, fori our own part, if the clause which we suggested had been added to it, “ and to inquire into matters generally which have affected, or are likely to affect, the satisfaction of the Samoans with New Zealand’s administration.” There could then have been no doubt about the sufficiency of its scope. The Prime Minister has stated, however, on behalf of the Government, that “ all the subject matter of the complaints which have been made is within the jurisdiction of the Commission,” and that should be enough for Mr Nelson. If his committee withdraws now from the inquiry, before its comprehensiveness has been tested, it must not object to impressions which that action will be likely to make upon the public mind in regard to the committee’s case. Mr Nelson presents another reason for his withdrawal. He complains that no sufficient guarantee has been given by the Government against molestation of or interference with the petitioners and their witnesses. But the fear that they would bo molested or interfered with we can only regard, with Mr Coates, as an affront to the Government. Samoa is not Russia. The objection to shortness of time for preparing a case appears to be sufficiently met also by Mr Coates’s reply that the committee has been in existence for a long period, during which its chief, if not its only legitimate, function seems to have been the accumulation of evidence and definition of grievances. It is not a continent in which evidence has to be gathered. The only evidence tendered to the Commission, in the ciramsiaiKvs of his withdrawal, Mr Nelson states, will be that given by the Administration and its supporters in the territory. We must hope that there will be more. If there is not, the development will recall most forcibly the experience of the Hon. Mr Lee, when he was Minister for Samoa, and visited the Islands to look into grievances in 1921, before Sir George Richardson was appointed. Mr Lee stated on his return that a particular object of his visit was to “ give the white residents of Apia who have criticised our administration so persistently in tiie Press of Australia, America, and England an opportunity to meet me, witli the Administrator, to make specific charges and to adduce what evidence they could in support of them.” But they refused to meet him. Mr Lee was assured, however, by a deputation which did wait on him to ask for a permit system under rigorous control, that the Prohibition law was the cause of the discontent with and prejudice against New Zealand, and that if that were relaxed to the extent suggested very little further criticism need be expected by him. “I am satisfied,” Mr Lee said, “that the delegation, in making this candid admission, only gave definite utterance to a conviction which is hold by the majority of people who arc familiar with recent Samoan history.” Wo commented at that time: “It is impossible to avoid the conclusion that Mr Lee was subjected to a partial boycott during his recent visit to Western Samoa.” And he had gone to examine grievances. Now a Royal Commission, charged with the same duty, is threatened with a complete boycott by the Hon. Sir Nelson and his committee. It is surprising at what short intervals history can repeat itself.