EUROPEANS’ POWERS

Otago Daily Times, Issue 26636, 5 December 1947, Page 5

EUROPEANS’ POWERS

AUTHORITY IN SAMOA SELF-GOVERNMENT REPORT RECOGNITION BY MISSION LAKE SUCCESS, »Rec. 8 p.m. Dec. 3. When the Trusteeship Council began to-day consideration of the United Nations mission’s report on greater powers of self-government for Western Samoa, Awni Khalidy (Iraq) said the report evidently was thorough -and sincere, but he questioned some of the recommendations. He singled out for special criticism recommendations which would provide for European residents of Western Samoa a disproportionate representation in the Government and the right of Europeans to trial by a European chief judge or commissioner. Khalidy also sought clarification of the exact powers for the proposed High Commissioner. If these powers included veto over money Bills, Samoans would be left with very little self-govern-ment.

Mr George Laking, of the New Zealand Government’s Samoan Administration, attended the session to answer questions. Herr Pierre Ryckmans (Belgium), replying on behalf of the mission to Khalidy’s criticism, said that Europeans in Western Samoa had played a part in the economic development of the country out of all proportion to their numbers. The mission felt that this should be recognised by granting them “ weighted ” representation in the Government. This decision, he said, would benefit Europeans and Samoahs.

Herr Ryckmans added that Samoan judges were competent in Samoan law, but their knowledge of European law was over-limited to warrant their using judicial power under its'provisions. Mr Laking explained that Samoan courts consisted of both European and Samoan officials, and the New Zealand Government was making a study of adjusting the problems created by different traditions and practices of the two sections of the population. Senor-Artugo Morales (Costa Rica) said the report should give more detailed explanation of the measures intended to advance Samoans to complete self-government. It was evident that facilities for health and education were now inadequate, and there would have to be specific proposals for improvement. Senor Morales said there appeared to be little difference between the role of Administrator as now existed under New Zealand’s trusteeship and a High Commissioner as envisaged in the mission’s report «

Herr Ryckmans replied that the essential difference was that the Administrator derived power directly and exclusively from the New Zealand Government, whereas a High Commissioner would derive power from his office of President of tne Council of the State of

Samoa. A High Commissioner would, therefore, be in essence a Samoan official, not New Zealand.

The High Commissioner would have power shared by Samoan representstives, whereas the . Administrator is the authority. . ... The Council, which adjourned without making a decision, will continue the discussion to-morrow.