Samoan Affairs.

Hokitika Guardian, 26 April 1922, Page 4

Samoan Affairs.

MR JOHN SANDES’S STATEMENT. REPLY BY HON E. P. LEE.

WELLINGTON, April 21. Some correspondence has been published between the High Commissioner for New Zealand in London and Mr John Sandes (a journalist who accompanied the Prince of Wales on his Australasian tour) dealing with an official denial of the correctness of some of the statements made in the articles on Samoan conditions written by Mr Sandes in 1920 for the papers he represented.

The Hon E. P. Lee (Minister of External Affairs) said to-day that the correspondence as published was not complete, because since the receipt of a copy of it, the Government had communicated further with the High Commissioner about Mr Sandos’s s*atements which he thought would place a different complexion on the matter. “It is stated in the correspondence,” continued the Minister, “that the High Commissioner’s office had admitted to Mr Sandes that his statement written during the Prince’s tour in 1920, ‘that the native community had prepared a petition praying that the mandate should be transferred to Great

Britain,’ was shown by subsequent events to have hud some foundation. 1 am sorry that any such admission was made. It could have only been made without a full knowledge of the facts. The fact that a native petition was in July, 1921, presented to his Majesty praying for a change of control is no evidence whatever in support of Mr Samlos’s statement made a year previously. The statement of Mr Sandes in 1920, was not correct, although I would not be surprised to know that the influences foHicr than native) which led to a petition being dialled and actually presented to His Majesty in 1921, had also been al work, but without success prior to the visit of His, Royal Highness.

“When Mr Sandes’s article was published careful and exhaustive enquiries were made by the Administrator through reliable sources, but failed to elicit any evidence whatever in support of the statement in the article. II such a petition had been contemplated or discussed h,v the Samoans, the Administrator would undoubtedly have heard something about it, from one source or another. Naturally the Administrator did not seek information from European sources.

"There is one other statement of Mr Sandes’s in his letter of November 23rd last which is equally without foundation and incapable of substtntiation. I refer to the paragraph in which lie says: 'The existence of the petition was discovered by Mr E. P. Lee, the New Zealand Minister of External Affairs, when he visited Samoa on a mission of enquiry last July. Mr Lee induced the chiefs to withdraw the petition temporarily, hut it was afterwards pres- nted to the King.’ In the first place the petition was a document which had been formulated and submitted to the Samoan chiefs who signed it a few weeks before my arrival. In the second place I made no attempt whatever to induce the chiefs to withdraw it. On the contrary, when it was suggested t* the Folio of the Knirpulos

by the High Chief, Maliotoa, iu his presence that the petition should be held in abeyance for six months I at onc-e informed the gathering that the petition must either be presented or w il lidrav, n. “1 have forwarded to the High ( onimissioncr.” concluded ihe .Minister, “a full shorthand note of the proceedings at the Folio when the petition was first mentioned, and no doubt these notes will be shown to Mr Sarnies, and from them he will see exactly the attitude adopted by me in the matter.”