SAMOA REPORT

Hokitika Guardian, 14 December 1927, Page 4

SAMOA REPORT

AIR COATES REPLIES. TO SIR J. CARRETHERS’ CRITICISM. WELLINGTON, Dec. 12. On the cablegram containing Sir Joseph Curruthers* statement being submitted to the Prime .Minister. Mr Coates commented :

‘•lf the report of the Samoan Commission is ‘just as Sir Joseph Carruthors expected.’ then either Sir Joseph must he very ignorant ol the terms of the report or liis previous expressions of his views have been very widely misunderstood. In view ol the amount of knowledge of the actual points at issue that has previously been disclosed by Sir Joseph in his somewhat uncalled for, and very public remarks, while the matter was still sub-judioo. I am prepared to believe that the former explanation is no doubt the correct one. Sir Joseph's statement that ‘the terms of refrenco were so narrow that no other report could have been anticipated’ shows an entire want, of knowledge of the actual circumstances. The actual fact is that the Commission was specifically instructed to entire into every one of the complaints that had been made either to the .Minister for External Affairs in Samoa, or in the petition presented to Parliament iim l in additon as required to enquire as to whether in any other direction the Administration could have been held to have exceeded their duty, or lo have failed to exercise their icspeetivc functions honestly and juslIv, and a.s to whether the power of banishment of Samoans could properly he repealed. “Sir Joseph's comment that the Hon. Mr Nelson and ‘other lending members of the local community were naturally unable to make their ease good within the narrow terms of reference that regulated the enquiry’ is so absurd in face of the undoubted position, as to he unworthy of detailed criticism. The plain farts of the ease, which are well-known in New Zealand, in Samoa, and by all who are capable of intelligently following the matter, are that the petitioners and the complainants were afforded by means of the Commission every possible opportunity of substantiating every one of (lie complaints that they made, and il is again a fact that the Commission did investigate every one ol these complaints, and did make a finding on each and all of them entirely vindicating the Ad-

"Sir Joseph's inference- that 'the main issues on which the Commission makes its finding-;. were. firstly, whether General Richardson had done good work in Samoa, and. secondly, whether the banishment of Samoans was in conformity with tlie laws and ordinances made by the New Zealand Parliament’ is again absurdly wide ol the mark. The Commission not only investigated all the matters already mentioned, hut on tin* subject of banishment. enquired, as they wore hound In do in .accordance with the terms of reference, into all the details oT the complaints made, and also as to whether it would he prudent and safe to repeal wholly and abrogate this power to require a Samoan to remove for a definite period from one place on the Tshind to another. On ibis head it would, in ordinary circumstances, lo uuneeessitrv to make any further r*-ier-en-.-c to the findings of the Commission. hut in view ol the extraordinary attitude taken up hv Sir Joseph Carruthers. I Iccl that I must, in justice to the Administrator, and indeed to the New Zealand Government, repeat the following passages from tile Coimnisision’s report :

“ ‘We arc satisfied.’ says the Commissioners, ‘that, these (banishment) orders were made upon a proper procedure and that no objection can be made to tliem We are wholly unable to see tlmt in the circumstances which obtained the Administrator was not justilUd in exercising such powers as he possessed to discourage (he organisation of the Man and to compel the dispersal of the Natives to their respective homes. It is clear to us that, tlie Administrator was right in his opinion that the organisation o! the Man. as understood and used by tbo Natives, could not exist. alongside of. and concurrently with, the* admLustration of the country under the mandate. One ar other must give way. We are of the opinion that it is not prudent or safe to repeal wholly (be power which we are considering, and further tliai no demand exists for such repeal.’ ‘•With Sir Josephs remark that ‘it takes some courage for a man in my position to condemn the actions of tlie Government of a sister Dominion.’ I

am prepared to agree. 1 think that it will be commonly agreed by all who are in a position to judge that it takes not only some courage’ but an unparalleled want of courtesy, combined with an equal want of knowledge of the circumstances, or a deliberate refusal to consider the facts. T am not disposed to enter into a public controversy with Sir Joseph Carrutliers or any other person who is inclined to express an opinion on a matter with which he has no concern. T am qulte propared to leave the actions of the Government and the findings of the Commission to the judgment of all impartial observers, who will, of course, understand that methods of administration appropriate to onliglited communities cannot be applied in their entirety, and with equal success to backward people, whose need of guidance and control is indeed recognised by llicir status under the mandate.”