"REVOLT OF THE SAMOAN”

Evening Star, Issue 19798, 23 February 1928, Page 5

"REVOLT OF THE SAMOAN”

MR HOLLAND'S PARTISANSHIP [By the Hon. W. H. Tuiggs, M.L.C.] A, pamphlet with the above title, by Mr H, E. Holland, M.P., Lender of the Opposition in New Zealand (so described in the title), has been issued. It is so misleading in its statements, so mischievous in its tendencies, and so regardless of the damage which may bo done to the good name and reputation of New Zealand in connection with the administration of the mandate over Samoa, that it ought not to be allowed to pass without protest. The time and manner of issuing this publication call for comment at the outset. It will bo remembered that, in the first instance, a joint parliamentary committee (of which Mr Holland was a member) was set up to inquire into the charges made against the administration of Samoa, that committee had examined only one witness, Mr Nelson, when it became only too evident that a. parliamentary committee was the worst possible tribunal for a judicial inquiry. Despite the earnest endeavors of the chairman, Sir James Allen, to keep the proceedings on judicial lines, it was evident that party feeling and party prejudices prevented members from approaching tho question in a judicial frame of mind. Tho Administrator (Sir George _Richardson) thereupon pressed for an impartial investigation by a Royal Commission. The Government very properly acceded to this request, and appointed the Chief Justice and the Chief Native Band Court Judge of New Zealand a Royal Commission to make the fullest investigation into the charges in tho petition and into the administration of Samoa generally. The Parliamentary Committee was thus superseded by a tribunal of the highest standing,' whose findings were entitled to be received with implicit confidence and respect.

Incredible ns it may appear. the pamphlet now issued by the Loader of tlic Opposition repeats and emphasises the most reckless statements made by Mr Nelson and bis fellow-agitators, although Mr Holland know at the time he was giving fresh currency to these statements that they had been utterly discredited by the report of tbo Royal Commission. Mr Holland himself makes a virulent attack upon the Chief Judge of Samoa, evidently based upon hearsay evidence supplied by the agitators, and yet ho had before him in the newspaper summary of the report of the Royal Commission (to which ho refers in the pamphlet) the substance of the following paragraph in the report:— We think that it is a significant circumstance that with reference to the acts of the present and previous Administrator, both on the European and native sides of their administrations, no not of malfeasance or misconduct was charged by the complainants. At one time it was suggested that charges of this nature might possibly be made against tbo pfesent Administration, but absolutely no evidence of such charges was tendered before us. . , . The absence of such allegations speaks highly for the spirit in which the administration in the past has been conducted. While ignoring the findings of the Royal Commission, Mr Holland quotes as if they were final and conclusive the ex - part© and ill-mannered criticisms and allegations of Sir Joseph Carruthers. As indicative of the political animus of the pamphlet it may bo mentioned that wliile treating with great deference a wandering politician from another State who had tbo impertinence to criticise our Government on the strength of what be lias beard from some of the agitators. Mr Holland stigmatises General Richardson, whose name and services will ever bo honored in New Zcaalnd. as “an official bird of passage” (p. G). Another instance of Mr Holland’s methods may he cited. Under the heading of “The Memory of a Tragedy that Lingers ’ ho resurrects and retells with embellishments the story of tho influenza epidemic of 1918, and remarks; “If the Samoans had no other reason than this for their hostility to us, that hostility would be well founded.” (To bitterly attacks not only the New Zealand Government, but “the Administrator” for what happened at that time, and the natural inference of nine-tenths of those who read this pamphlet will ho that it is Sir George Richardson who is referred to. Of course, the epidemic occurred five years before Sir George Richardson was appointed, and Mr Holland knows perfectly well that the manner in which the health of the natives has been cared for throughout the present administration has been the subject of unstinted eulogy by English and American experts who have visited the islands, and has been specially commended by tho League of Nations. The report of the Royal Commission quotes two recent testimonies. Dr S. M. Lambert, of the International Health Board of the Rockefeller Institute, in his ‘ Health Survey of the New Hebrides.’ published in 192(1. says:--Tbo vital question as to whether tbo decline of Native Pacific races can he checked and their numbers brought back has been answered brilliantly by the New Zealanders in Samoa by intensive efforts against hookworm disease and yaws, especially with good hospitalisation ami the establishment of confidence in their Government in the Samoan mind. In a period of loss than three years a hiith and death rate practically equal has been changed to a, birth rate of fifty-live and a death rate of twenty-two, with an infant mortality rate that many civilised countries might envy. Dr Buxton, now director of medical entomology, London School of Tropical Medicine, in his ‘Researches in Polynesia and Melanesia,’ published in July Jast, remarks of Samoa:— It is perhaps not impertinent to •state that New Zealand provides a public health service which might serve as a model to any small tropical country, and that the administration of that department seemed to be characterised by vision and forethought. Why are these facts ignored and a highly-colored account of the influenza epidemic of 1918 dragged in where it has no relevance? Is it to create, for party purposes, an atmosphere of prejudice and innuendo to divert attention from the very poor figure cut by Mr Holland’s friends before the Royal Commission? If so, has Mr Holland considered what may bo the effect on the Samoans’ mind of this fresh appeal to their passions and resentment? Surely he can see what a very dangerous game he is playing! But the Leader of the Opposition not. only commits tho gross impropriety of himself rushing into print with a repetition of ex parte charges which he knows to have been exploded by the report of the Royal Commission, but he actually complains that the parliamentary committee, of which he was a member-, has not perpetrated a similar outrage. He says that Sir James Allen promised that when the committee’s report was presented to Parliament the evidence would be printed and also tabled. He wants to know “ why this promise has been dishonored.” Ho knows that when that promise was made it was fully believed that evidence on both sides would be taken and the committee would come to a decision. But the only witness examined was Mr Nelson, and the committee was superseded hy the Royal Commission. A copy of the evidence taken by the com-

mittco and the addresses of counsel was made available to all parties to the Commission, and a copy of it was, on arrival of the Commission at Samoa, handed to Mr Baxter, the leading counsel for tho petitioners. Tho report of the Commission continues: The greater part ot the evidence taken before tho joint committee, perhaps necessarily, was hearsay, and wo determined on this ground to exclude tho report from being put in evidence before the Commission. Tho propriety of this determination was not questioned bv the counsel for the complainants'or for the Administration. « ■ Mr Nelson gave evidence before the Commission in Samoa, ami it is printed in full with that of the other witnesses with the report. It evidently did not create a very favorable impression on tho minds of tho Commissioners. They say that both at the meeting of Europeans and Samoans and in his evidence lie “ made some very reckless statements which could easily have been ascertained by him to have been mistaken.” Not one- of his allegations against the Administrator was upheld by the Commission. How, then, can it bo seriously contended that a wrong has been committed, because his unsupported evidence before the Parlia. meutary Committee, a good (leal of which was subsequently’discredited, lias not been givn tho distinction ot separate publication as a Parliamentary paper? If this were merely a party question I should not have troubled the readers of this journal with my views upon it. 1 have no personal leeling against Mr Holland. On the contrary, I admire his skill as a Parliamentary tactician, Ids untiring industry, ml the dogged ness with which he has fought what has hitherto been an uphill tight. But the discharge of tho groat trust committed to us in tbo Mandate over Samoa is not a party question, and should not be so treated. On tbo success or failure of our efforts depends not only the welfare of tho Samoan people, but tho good name and reputation of New Zealand before the world. Until Mr Nelson and the Man commenced their campaingn of propaganda towards tbo end of 1926 there was no dissatisfaction among tho Samoans. Statements wore made to them which tho report describes as recklessly inaccurate. The Man was nothing more nor less than a seditious body. Its first purpose was to secure practically selfgovernment for the Samoans; its second purpose was to frustrate and .render ineffective the functioning of tho Administration. “It was clear to us,” say tbo Commissioners, “ that thcro was an organised and deliberate attempt to frustrate and render abortive th© activities of the Administration, and ultimately to set up a Samoan Government.”

Undoubtedly a dangerous condition of affairs has arisen. Mr Holland himself says: “It is extremely grave.” and adds that “however much the official eyo may be closed to the fact, the Samoans arc in open revolt against our rule in their country.” if this is the case, surely it is the duty of every patriotic New Zealander to support the Government in its.efforts to restore law and order. The Commission has upheld the action of tho Administrator in every particular, and I cannot understand any patriotic New Zealander not feeling relieved and delighted that the charges made against our rule 'in Samoa had been completely exploded by the most competent and impartial tribunal it was possible to select, and that New Zealand could once more proudly hold up her head before the world. The Commissioners have said that reckless misstatements were circulated among the natives by Messrs Nelson, Gurr, and other members of the Citizens’ Committee, and it is clear Irom the report the Man was hut a seditious organisation to render New Zealand’s task of carrying out the mandate impossible, and to substitute Samoan Home Rule in its place. Surely, in these circumstances, Messrs Nelson and Co. arc fortunate, indeed, that nothing more serious has happened to them than removal from tiic scene of their disloyal and dangerous activities, Mr Holland being obsessed by the plausible statements of Mr Nelson before the Parliamentary Committee, treating the findings of the Commission as of no account, refusing to wait a week or two until he could read the sworn evidence given before tbo Commission before rushing into print, persists in regarding Messrs Nelson and Co. and his followdoportccs as martyrs suffering in a righteous cause. The Man, which was clearly hatched and directed hy Europeans, ho describes as “ the organisation of tbo Samoans; it is tho inevitable product of the conditions which we have imposed on Samoa, and it rcllccts the strivings of tho people for rights of self-government, for their rights as a. people which they aro justly claiming from ns.” In the words of the Treaty of Versailles and in the eyes of the League of Nations, the Samoans aro “ a people not yet able to stand by themselves,’ and that is why wo have been given the mandate over them. Mr Holland actually goes on to add: “'That there has been no outbreak of violence we mainly owe to the counsel of Mr Nelson and the Samoan cliiels and other opponents of the Government who arc among the victims ol its methods.”

Of course, it is no use appealing to the reason and judgment of one who shows himself so blinded by party prejudice and with so little sense of responsibility. Mr Holland thinks the situation *“ calls for prompt action on tho part of tho League of Nations.” There is no doubt that the Mandates Committee and the League of Nations as a body, before whom the matter will come in due course, will not confine their attention to the evidence given by Mr Nelson before the Parliamentary Committee, lint will give due weight to the report of tho Royal Commission, and will examine the sworn evidence given on both sides of the .question. That being so, the Government and people of New Zealand may await with calmness and confidence the decision of tho League. In the meantime the task of tho Samoan Administration and tho New Zealand Government in attempting to undo the mischief and allay the disaffection which have been deliberately stirred up among the Samoans will not be rendered any easier by this lamentable failure of the Leader of the Opposition to take a large-minded and statesmanlike view' of bis own responsibilities in this matter.

[This article was written before tbo despatch of warships to Samoa, which has given a new emphasis to the seriousness of the situation.—Ed. E.&.]