The Sun 42 Wyndham Street, Auckland, N.Z. SATURDAY, JUNE 25, 1927. UNREST IN WESTERN SAMOA

Sun (Auckland), Volume 1, Issue 80, 25 June 1927, Page 8

The Sun 42 Wyndham Street, Auckland, N.Z. SATURDAY, JUNE 25, 1927. UNREST IN WESTERN SAMOA

ALL those who have the best interests of New Zealand at heart should be restrained in criticism of the Government in respect of the ferment over the mandatory administration of Western Samoa. It is clear that a difficult situation exists in the island and that a section of the native population and a group of European residents are sore and resentful with discontent. The Administration indubitably must have believed that there was need for a high-handed effort to suppress agitation by disciplining the agitators. Deportation of malcontents in any circumstances represents so drastic a form of correction that governments with centuries of experience behind them hesitate to adopt it. Of course, there are occasions when fools rush in where wise men stand and wait. It may be that the fact that two chiefs .of high rank have been summarily banished from their homes to a coastal island holds more proof of the prevalence of active mischievous influences in the territory than evidence of an overbearing spirit of intolerance in the immature Administration. It is silly to quibble about the name given to the imnishment. Technically, it may not be deportation, but its character is plain enough. If, for instance, the Hon. W. Nosworthy, the Minister in charge of Western Samoa, were transferred to a hut on Rangitoto as an act of discipline, his protest against deportation and exile would echo .across the Waitemata like the cry of Hagar in the wilderness. Whatever the cause of discontent may have been, it is the duty of New Zealand citizens in the meantime to support the Government in its serious responsibilities until circumstances prove that the Administration is not worthy of support. If, ultimately, there should be evidence revealing clearly that the policy of the Government has been stupid in its severity, then those responsible for harsh action must be prepared to accept merciless censure. Mandatory control of Western Samoa is vastly different from the democratic government of this country. It is an international experiment, based on the highest principles of humanitarian development of a relatively backward community of simple natives. The Rafferty rules of party politics must not be allowed to intrude. Hitherto, the Mandates Commission of the League of Nations to whom the mandatory State must answer for the operation of its mandate, has been satisfied with the results of the trust reposed in New Zealand. That satisfaction has been .recorded at Geneva as a tribute without challenge from alert nations and irreconcilable observers not in sympathy with the mandatory system of control. When the proposal to establish administration of Germany’s former territories in the Pacific by mandate in place of annexation by right of conquest was threshed, winnowed and sifted at the Conference of Paris the late Mr. Massey did not impulsively urge acceptance of the trust. He realised the responsibilities involved and saw the problem clearly and saw it whole. And his pledge to maintain an honest and honourable discharge of the trust was national and in no sense political. That pledge covers safeguards against the cupidity of selfish exploiters of the native population of Western Samoa. It may be assailed by the loud voice of spurious patriotism, but the pledge must stand. The present trouble calls for serious consideration, but the attention to be given to it in Parliament should be' prudent. Samoa must not be made a Tom Tiddler’s ground for party disputants in national politics. As the official Opposition, it is the duty of Labour to probe the trouble, but the probing should not be done with a shovel. On this question our politicians will be subjected to an international test. -