The Sun 42 Wyndham Street, Auckland, N.Z. TUESDAY, JULY 19, 1927. BLUNDERS IN SAMOA

Sun (Auckland), Volume 1, Issue 100, 19 July 1927, Page 8

The Sun 42 Wyndham Street, Auckland, N.Z. TUESDAY, JULY 19, 1927. BLUNDERS IN SAMOA

TIIE latest evidence about blundering administrative methods in Western Samoa lias compelled the Government party newspaper in Auckland to turn a somersault on the question. A month ago the same journal ridiculed oversea criticism of the Administration and asserted that “the whole trouble was attributable to a few disgruntled Europeans who, chagrined at checks imposed on their private schemes to exploit the natives, had endeavoured to besmirch Sir George Richardson’s reputation and incidentally to condemn the methods of the New Zealand Government.” It now calls upon the authorities to answer the indictment made against the Administration by an independent witness. There is virtue even in a belated conversion. In this case, a change in policy inferentially admits that all the aggrieved residents of Western Samoa are not commercial scoundrels and disloyal agitators. It is a tardy omission that may influence an obdurate Administration to make a quick end to a foolish policy in the mandated territory. Those who intimately know Sir Joseph Carruthers, M.E.C., of New South Wales, and his canny ways as a royal-blue Conservative, will see more in his statement as to blunders in Samoa than appears on its surface. He is not an impulsive man, nor one given to emotion. Moreover, the habit of his active life in politics has been to keep well within the boundaries of controversial fact. Had he been more of a juggler with truth, as politicians see it, he still might have been Premier of his own State. So it can be taken as certain that, when this cautious, shrewd legislator says plainly that “someone in Samoa has blundered stupidly in taking a high-handed attitude,” it is beyond doubt that the stupidity is there and is provocative in its exercise. Indubitably, the greatest blunder of all has been the administrative policy and action in inflicting imprisonment and banishment on native chiefs without open trial or any procedure affording the barest rights of British justice. It is clear that neither the Government nor the Administrator has given thorough consideration to the spirit and letter of the mandate. When the Supreme Council of the Allied and Associated Powers at the Peace Conference agreed to confer the mandate on New Zealand, under what may be termed the paternal jurisdiction of the League of Nations, it was made a specific condition of the trust that the mandated territory of Western Samoa was to be administered as an integral part of New Zealand. That condition was not only interpreted, but was accepted, as a guarantee of good government on the principles of justice. As General Smuts noted some time ago in the Union Parliament in respect of the SouthWest Africa mandate, the right to administer it as an integral portion of the Union was as good as annexation, leaving nothing more to be desired. If Samoa be an integral part of New Zealand, why impose on it ruthless laws and regulations which would not be tolerated for a. day in the Dominion? What is to be done about it? The Government should first appoint a judicial commission of inquiry, and then arrange for a transfer of the portfolio of External Affairs to the Prime Minister. There are too many administrative and departmental amateurs exercising power in and over the territory.