THE SAMOAN CRISIS

Evening Star, Issue 19804, 1 March 1928, Page 15

THE SAMOAN CRISIS

m HOLLAND'S PAMPHLET THE “ WRONGS OF THE NATIVES " WHO IS AFAMASAGA? [By the Hon. W. H. Trigos, M.L.C.] One part of Mr Holland’s pamphlet to which I have not yet devoted much attention is his charge of high-handed treatment of the Samoans in the matter of the so-called “ banishments’’ and deprivation of titles. He quotes as his authorities the ex parte statement of Sir Joseph Carruthers and the evidence given by Mr Nelson before tub Parliamentary Committee. The Royal Commission completely justifies the action of the Administrator in every case complained of. Nevertheless, ns the matter has been very much misrepresented by Mr Holland in his pamphlet, and he is continually harping upon it iu his speeches, it may be well to see exactly how much foundation there is for his diatribes.

The particular case which Mr Holland relics upon as his most shocking example of a Samoan being banished and deprived of his title is that of a chief whom he refers to as Afamasaga, but who will be more easily recognised ns Lago Lago, the name by which he was known throughout the inquiry. Mr Holland’s version of what is really a very interesting story is as follows: In the early part of the Administrator’s term of office, that official made much of Afamasaga, calling for cheers for him at public gatherings, and so on. Later on, because Afamasaga’s activities displeased the Administrator, the chief was ordered to drop the title of Afamasaga, and to bo known in future as Lago Lago. The deprivation of the chief’s title was an affront to the Samoan people, and they refused to recognise the order, and continued to address the chief by his proper title. The legal effect of the Administrator’s order was that Afamasaga was no longer a chief, and therefore had no authority with the people. Some time back, when a number of natives were gathered in the vicinity of Afaniaeaga’s village, the Administrator sent for the Samoan whom he had deemed of chiefly power and demanded that he should order the people o return to their homes. The Administrator must have- known that if his own deprivation order held good Afnmasaga (no longer a chief) had not tho right to do what Sje Administrator was now demanding. And yet, because he did not do it, the Administrator punished him. . . . The additional punishment took the effect of deportation without trial to the island of Apolima.

This is a characteristic example of Mr Holland’s inverted way of looking at the facts, and his equally eccentric logic. The facts, as revealed in the evidence before the Royal Commission (chiefly out of Lago Lngo’s own mouth) put an entirely different complexion on the affair. The eccentricity of Mr Holland’s logic is obvious to anyone who reads the extract I have given. In one breath he says that the Administrator punished the chief for not doing what the Administrator’s order had deprived him of the power of doing, and in the next breath he says, what is quite true, that the Samoans refused to recognise the order. Clearly he had just as much influence and authority as before. What led to his banishment to Apolima was that he and another chief, Fnumuina. were the ringleaders of the seditions assembly of Samoans who in June, 1927, were doing their best to prevent the Government from functioning, rnd to substitute the rule of the Man. They refused to return to their homes. The Administrator tried in a conciliatory way to induce the chiefs to get the people to go away. They refused to do anything of the kind, and sent the Administrator a most defiant letter. They never suggested for one moment that they no longer had any authority over the people. On the contrary, it was dear that they dominated the. situation, and were using their authority to foment sedition. It was riien that the Administrator ordered the two chiefs to leave their villages and remain in Apolima during his pleasure. But this is not the whole story, and not even the most interesting part. As a matter of fact, Lago Lago has had two orders of banishment and deprivation of title made against him. The particulars will bo found in his examination and cross-examination before the Royal Commission. The first occasion was in the early part of 1927. He had had the misfortune of appearing before the High Court, when ho was convicted of illicit brewing and fined £ls. His own version was: “1 bore the blame of illicit brewing by a lady in my village. The liquor was found on my premises, and I bore the blame.” Most people will say that that was not a very heinous offence, especially considering the air of chivalry thrown over it hy the defendant. But unfortunately worse was to follow. It was in consequence of this conviction that the first order of banishment was made. But the trifling “ activities ” which, according to Mr Holland, “ displeased the Administrator,” did not end there. On January 28, 1924, Lago Lago was adjudged a bankrupt. Inquiries were then made about a sum of £6OO church funs which had been entrusted to him by the natives of Sa’anafu, and £IOO interest which he had received upon that amount. He admitted in cross-examination that he had spent £2OO of that amount on a motor car, that all he was able to produce was £177, and he was convicted of converting £523 to his own use, and sentenced to a year’s imprisonment. When, in December, 1926, Lago Lago was appointed one of a Samoan deputation to visit New Zealand at the expense of the Citizens’ Committee to lay complaints before the Minister of External Affairs, the inspector of police to whom he applied for a passport pointed out to him that under the law of New Zealand he was a prohibited immigrant. The Act provides that a person who has been convicted for a criminal offence punishable by one year’s imprisonment would not be permitted to enter New Zealand until two years had elapsed since the come' "an of the term of imprisonment, period would not expire in Lago Lago’s case until June, 1927. Later on this interesting person got involved' in further trouble. He admitted in his cross-examination before the Commission that at that very time an inquiry was going on into the operations of two clubs or companies, of which he was a promoter and director, and which had been wound up on the report of liquidators from New Zealand. The subscriptions came from the natives. Asked whether there was not a shortage of £3.500 in these two clubs, he replied that he did not know. All he knew was that the clubs had been wound up on the report of the liquidators, and that he had been dismissed. The Commission pointed out very fairly that it might simply have been a loss for which Lago Lago was not responsible. Lago Lago’s second banishment order was made in June, 1927, in circumstances. which have been already explained.

Of course, there must have been some redeeming features about Mr Holland’s remarkable protege. He made an attempt to pay back the church money, although with imperfect success up to the time of his appearance before the Commission. His family waited on the Administrator after his banishment to thank him for making the order, but in course of time Lago Lago seems to have regained most of his old influence,

and His Excellency was about to give favorable consideration to requests for the restoration of his titles, when the, affair of the two clubs cropped up, and General Richardson decided to hold his. hand until the result of the inquiries should be made known. It is clear that the Samoan’s chequered career did not prevent him from receiving the countenance and confidence of Mr Nelson, and exercising a great influence over the Samoan people. He was a member of Mr Nelson’s Citizens’ Committee, and was entrusted with the preparation of the Samoan part of the very misleading report circulated by that body. Quite naturally lie was given the question of finance to deal with. Unfortunately his varied experience in financial matters did not prevent him from falling into some serious mistakes, which had the effect of creating anxiety and unrest in the minds of the _ Samoans. He told the Commission, in reply to a question, that he felt himself competent to undertake the duties of Minister of Finance for the Government. Probably he would attain his ambition if Samoa were handed over to the Mau, as Mr Holland suggested.

Undoubtedly Lago Lago is a man of parts. It seems apparent, however, that on the whole Mr Holland has been unfortunate in his selection of a typical victim and martyr, if lie wishes to enlist the sympathy of the people oi 1 New Zealand. In the most friendly spirit I would urge him to read carefully the examination and cross-exam-ination of Lago Lago before the Royal Commission. If that does not teach him the unwisdom of accepting implicitly all the ex-par te statements made by Mr Nelson before the Parliamentary Committee he must indeed be wilfully blind. In conclusion, I may state that the Royal Commissioners not only completely exonerated and uphold the Administrator in his actions in these matters, but in answer to a specific question put to them in the order of reference said that in their opinion it was not safe or prudent to repeal the power of local banishment. “The custom,” they said, “appears to have been evolved from the family and communal system under which the natives live. It undoubtedly has its uses, as pointed out by Captain Bell, in preserving order in villages, and in preventing irritation likely to result in violence. Moreover, the power appears to us at times or places where there may ho native unrest, and it may ba desirable to isolate affected natives and restrict the growth of disorder. We do not think it is possible to rely wholly upon the ordinary criminal procedure. Many acts which.might well justify the removal of a native from a village might not come under the definition of a crime. Moreover, there is practically no adequate police force in the territory. The gaols are few, and are wholly insufficient to provide _ for a number of persons whom it might ho desirable,, as a safeguard, to keep in custody.” There was no demand on the part of the Samoans that this power should be repealed.