Appeals of Samoan Chiefs Dismissed

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 181, 21 October 1927, Page 13

Appeals of Samoan Chiefs Dismissed

BANISHMENT TO STAND JUDGE OSTLER DISSENTS Press Association. WELLINGTON, To-day. The appeals of the two Samoan chiefs, Fuataga and Tagaloa, against the convictions following on their disobedience of the decrees of local banishment, were dismissed by the Court of Appeal this morning. The appeal was heard before the Full Court, consisting of Mr. Justice Sim, Mr. Justice Herdman, Mr; Justice Reed, Mr. Justice Adams and Mr. Justice Ostler. Sir John Findlay, K.C., with Mr. R. E. Harding, appeared for appellants, and Messrs. M. Myers, K.C. and Currie for respondent. The two native chiefs were on July 5 last served with decrees of local banishment, ordering them to leave the village of Lalomanga and remain outside the district of Taumasaga for a period of three months. These decrees were issued in pursuance of the Samoan Offenders’ Ordinance of 1922, which gives the Administrator power to make decrees of local banishment, “if he is satisfied that such a course, is necessary in the public interest.” On July 7 these two natives were found in Apia, which is within the district of Taumasaga, in breach of the order. Accordingly on July 9 they were charged before the court of Samoa with non-compliance with the order, and after pleading not guilty were found guilty, and convicted. It is against these convictions that Fuataga and Tagaloa are now appealing. COURT’S DECISION The judgment, which was delivered by Mr. Justice Sim, was to the effect: (1) That the Samoa Act, 1921. was not ultra vires to the powers of the legislature of New Zealand. (2) That New Zealand and not the King was the mandatory under mandate given by the League of Nations. (3) That the term “Government of New Zealand” as used in the mandate means the Parliament of New Zealand. (4) That the Samoan Offenders’ Ordinance of 1922 was not repugnant to the Samoan Act, 1921. Mr. Justice Ostler dissented from the above judgment, holding that the Ordinance was in fact repugnant to the Act of 1921.

months of his having acted as assessor, it would be accepted as evidence that he had been dismissed because he had acted as assessor. In cases where no two members of the Court could agree, the Judge would decide. A fair standard of living and trade and economic conditions would be taken into consideration by the Court, as well as the financial state of the industry affected. In the case of a strike or the likelihood of a strike, the Minister could summon the parties to confer with him, and if they did not appear they were liable to a fine of £SO. “Revolutionary’ ’ Mr. H. E. Holland, Leader of the Opposition, while hesitating to describe the Bill as revolutionary, said thjt certainly it was reactionary. This was a measure about which industrial organisation would not yet have been consulted. He hoped the Minister would give ample time for it to be fully considered, and representations made. Trade Unions were not circularised. Mr. Anderson: They circularised me, and this Bill embodies what they asked for. They sought an alteration in the constitution of the Court. Mr. Holland: They asked for an alteration, but not for exemption of the farming industry. Will the Minister tell us now how he is going to settle disputes in rural centres? He has removed something, and has put nothing in its place. Does the strike or the lock-out have to be the method of settling these rural disputes? Supposing the grievance is on the part of the employer, he has to employ lock-out. If it is on the part of the worker, has he to resort to strike? Is that the position? Will the Minister give an explanation of this? Mr. D. G. Sullivan, Avon, expressed apprehension at the exclusion from the scope of the Act of those engaged in farming and agricultural industries, because many workers in these industries were members of strong trade unions. The shearers were an instance, and among others they had great bearing upon the economic life of the community. Mx\ W. E. Parry, Auckland Central, persisted in asking that the Bill be sent to the Labour Bills Committee. Mr. Anderson: The usual course will be followed. Mr. Parry: This is extraordinary. Mr. Anderson: You know as well as I do that it will go to committee. Opposition Ahead Mr. Parry anticipated strong opposition to the clauses relating to assessors. and asserted that trade unionism in New Zealand was so strong that no man dare aim a blow at it and hope to produce an effect.