Truth About Samoa

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 219, 5 December 1927, Page 9

Truth About Samoa

PROTEST AGAINST DELAY

Labour Criticises Administration

WELLINGTON, Saturday. LABOUR members of the House of Representatives were strong in their condemnation of the Government’s handling of the Samoan trouble, when the whole question was reopened this afternoon by the presentation to the House of the report of the Select Committee which recently began an investigation into the petitions from Samoa.

'J'HE committee had no recommendation to make, since it had suspended its inquiries on the appointment of the Royal Commission on Samoa. “It is obvious that there will now be no opportunity this session of discussing the commission’s report,” said Mr. M. J. Savage, Auckland West, “and next session there might be an opportunity, but by then all interest in it will have blown over. I suppose that is one of the tricks of the trade, but we have been in session long enough, and the Government could have tabled the report long ago had it wanted to. I must express astonishment at the attitude the Government has adopted from the outset. It seems as though it had something to cover up.” Mr. Savage added that it was a pite that the Government saw fit, after setting up a Parliamentary Committee, to shut the doors on it and take other means of investigating the trouble. PROTEST AGAINST DELAY Drawing attention to the deserted state of the benches in the House, the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. H. E. Holland, complained bitterly of the Government’s action in delaying the report until the end of the session, and of the withholding of the evidence taken before the committee, which he considered should have gone into the records as a Parliamentary paper. Why was this extraordinary course being taken? he asked. If he had known at the last, meeting of the committee that the evidence would be suppressed, the committee would not have ended its work nearly as soon as it did. The Hon. W. Nosworthy, Minister of External Affairs: I think it will be found in the Royal Commission’s report. Mr. Holland: There are things in this report which will not be found in the Royal Commission’s report. The Government, in giving the order of reference to the Royal Commission, did not permit it to deal with the situation as it affected the Europeans. The correct thing for the Government to have done, said Mr. Holland, was to have set up a Royal Commission immediately, and done the business in such a way that it could have reported this session. He suggested that the Government, seeing that the Hon. O. F. Nelson was a half-caste Samoan, and knowing the Samoan character, had decided to get Mr. Nelson before the committee,have him cross-examined by the fiercest counsel in the Dominion, turn him inside out, and that would be the end of it. Mr. Nosworthy: Don’t impute such motives against me. Mr. Holland said everyone knew that Mr. M. Myers, K.C., was one of the ablest cross-examiners in New Zealand, and the members who listened to the cross-examination would admit that there never had been a witness who came as well out of an ordeal as did Mr. Nelson. ADMINISTRATOR’S ATTITUDE Mr. Holland trenchantly condemned the attitude of the Administrator of Samoa for the language he had used in connection with the trial of chiefs in the islands. To one allegation he had telegraphed: “It is a lie!" “Fancy a governor of a colony using such extravagant language in an official communication,” ejaculated Mr. Holland. Mr. Coates: And it was a lie? Mr. Holland: I don’t know, because we did not have an opportunity of finding out. Mr. Coates: If it was, he was perfectly entitled to say so. Mr. Holland: Well, I say that you would not countenance such language from the Governor-General of this

Mr. Coates: I often feel like saying [ so. Mr. Holland said that Mr. Nelson had come calmly through a gruelling ordeal before the Joint Committee, and in spite of the fact that the De-puty-Administrator of the Islands was present at the committee deliberations, no attempt was made to put him on the witness stand to refute the charges. He personally would have liked to have had the opportunity of cross-examining him. CLEARING UP MISREPRESENTATION The Minister of External Affairs, the Hon. W. Nosworthy, replied briefly to the Leader of the Opposition, and said that it was true that General Richardson, Administrator of the Mandated Territory, had not at first wished for a Royal Commission, neither did the Government have any such intention when the Joint Committee on the Samoan petition was established. The appointment of this

committee was a matter of Parlia- | mentary procedure and quite correct jin the circumstances; in fact, it was j the only course open to the Govern- ; j ment. The Citizens’ Committee in j I Samoa had gone behind his (Mr. Nos- j (worthy’s) back in presenting its peti- j j tion because it was aware that he, j |as Minister for External Affairs, was I about to visit the Islands and investi- : gate the trouble that had been brew- j ing. "When General Richardson found the misrepresentation that was taking place in every part of the civilised world about his administration in Samoa,” the Minister went on, “he asked for a Royal Commission and ( the Government granted the request.” ; It had been thought by the Govern- | ment that the dispatch of the commis- | sion to the Islands would clear up the ! question more effectively because it j would save the trouble of getting the j natives from the Islands to fossick out the information that would be required to satisfy the House. Most of the evidence before the committee wms hearsay evidence, and he personally could not see why it should be laid upon the table of the House. He understood that most of this evidence would be given in the report of the commission. Mr. P. Fraser: But surely we are entitled to the evidence. The House paid for the taking of evidence before the committee. Mr. Nosworthy: But it is only hearsay, and the evidence before the Royal Commission was on oath. They took everything it was possible to get when they were at Samoa. And I understand that so far as the utterance of the iudge was concerned, Mr. Nelson would not substantiate this statement when he was before the Royal Commission. Mr. Holland: Was the judge not fined? Mr. Nosworthy: Yes; but I am not sure that the whole thing was not a fiasco. | Mr. Fraser: I suppose it is the gen- | oral and laudable thing for judges to (be fined? j Mr. Nosworthy: Oh, of course not. j The Minister could not agree that ; expenses of counsel for petitioners ! should be paid by the Government. I Mr. Nelson’s name was on the petiS tion and he appointed his counsel be--1 fore the Government appointed its J own. ! Mr. Holland: Did not the Govern- [ ment intend to compel Mr. Nelson to I attend that committee if he had not done so voluntarily? Mr. Nosworthy: I don’t know that it did. But I think it was his duty seeing that his name was on the petition and he was in New Zealand, j Mr. Holland: Will you reply to that t statement about the Governor during the Supreme Court case which was sub judice? Mr. Nosworthy: No; I prefer to let the Royal Commission deal with that. The commission will present its report; and as soon as Cabinet has seen it it will be released to the public, and I —and I feel sure every other member of the House—will be | prepared to go by whatever verdict |is made. "A ONE-SIDED STATEMENT” | Mr. E. P. Lee, chairman of the ; j Joint Select Committee, said it was I suggested that it would be a fair and ( proper thing to lay the evidence taken j before the committee on the table of j the House. Would it be fair to the I Administrator and officials in Samoa' jto place on the table the one-sided j statement of Mr. Nelson, without any j reply from any other individual, and allow it to go before the Press and the public, with the chance of being accepted as the state of affairs in Samoa? Dealing with the statements which Mr. Holland had said were made by Mr. Nelson, Mr. Lee said that Mr. ! Nelson, who was described as an exceedingly astute and clever man, was (well able and sufficiently skilled to ( present everything that he had to say on Samoa to the Royal Commission. They might take it for granted that Mr. Nelson, assisted by the evidence taken in New Zealand, would be able ; to prove before the Royal Commis- J sion the statements which he had ! made to the Select Committee, and j that he would not overlook, before the ; Royal Commission, any of those 1 statements which would be of vSlue, and would go to the root of the ad- . ministration of Sir George Richard- j son in Samoa. Before Mr. Holland came to any judgment, said Mr. Lee, let him ascertain whether Mr. Nelson ( had stood up to the Royal Commis- ; sion with his evidence on the charges j which he made to the Select Committee when there was no one to answer them. The Hon. A. G. Smyth was in New ; Zealand with Mr. Nelson, went on Mr. j Lee, and from time to time he made ' alarming and detrimental statements ; about the administration. It w-as_ j stated in a letter in the “Samoa Times” that when Mr. • Smyth was giving evidence before the Royal Commission, on his return to Samoa, i and was asked what he had to say ( against the administration, he replied, "I cannot think of anything at the moment.” (Laughter.) “If this is correct,” said Mr. Lee, “and time will soon show, what is to be thought of a man who comes here and levels all these charges, and then, when asked what he has to say, replies that he cannot recollect anything at the moment?” Mr. Holland: Have you seen the Royal Commission’s report? Mr. Lee: No, I have not seen it, and j I do not know what is in it. But if I j am prepared to accept the report as the true state of affairs in Samoa, will the hon. gentleman do likewise? Mr. Holland: Oh, absolutely. The report of the committee was ( laid on the table.