SAMOAN RULE VINDICATED

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 224, 10 December 1927, Page 14

SAMOAN RULE VINDICATED

COMMISSION’S FINDINGS

Natives’ Interests Safeguarded CHARGES UNSUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE (From Our Resident Reporter .) WELLINGTON, To-day. THE report of the Samoan Commission issued to-day discloses little to support the charges levelled at the Administration by the Hon. O. F. Nelson and the Citizens’ Committee. On three small non-essential points alone is there any finding that is not entirely in favour of the Administration. THE main points of the Commission’s the Administrator must, of course, refindings are summarised as of thiß matter is not wit hiu the low: — I scope of the inquiry,” the report proPrnh ihitinn irt stamtorv. the Ad- \ ceeds.

Prohibition is statutory, the Administrator must respect and enforce it. The legislation has proved effective, as far as could reasonably be expected, in preventing the consumption of intoxicants by Samoans. Under the question of complaints concerning the action of the Administration in making advances against native copra and consigning it to the London market through the agency of the New Zealand Reparation Estates Department, the Commission finds that traders were aware for some years past of complaints by natives that they were not getting fair treatment, and the traders were content with the position. Also there was no competition, natives being helpless, having to accept what traders chose to pay and that the traders paid only one price, irrespective of the quality of the copra. The conditions under which the Samoans sold their copra to the traders were not just or reasonable. The Commission finds that the financial results of the Administrator's scheme to induce production of good copra by natives and to ensure their receiving a fair price had been good.

In regard to complaints as to extravagance in public expenditure, the finding of the Commission is wholly in favour of the Administration. They find Mr. E. W. Gurr and Mr. A. G. Smyth guilty of inexcusable carelessness in the figures and statements of the financial report, but acquit them of wilful misstatements. Mr. Nelson’s statements were characterised as very reckless, and they found nothing to justify the complaint that the Administration was overstaffed, overpaid, or otherwise extravagant. The Commission finds that the medical administration was most zealously conducted and was most efficient. Complaints as to the conduct of native affairs, and alleged dictatorship of the Administrator, the Commission finds unfounded. The banishment orders were regularly made after proper investigation. The Commission makes severe strictures on Mr. Nelson’s part in the Samoan trouble, and refers to the “grotesque” exaggeration of some reports which reached Mr. Nelson in Wellington, Sydney, and Auckland from Samoan sources. The Commission finds that it would not be prudent or safe to repeal wholly the power to require a Samoan tc remove to another place in the islands. Further, no demand exists for the repeal. No act cf malfeasance, misfeasance or misconduct on the part of the Administration, past or present, is revealed. Commission’s Task The order of reference of the commission is cited as follows:—(1) Whether, having regard to the duties undertaken by the Government of New Zealand under the said mandate, there is just or reasonable cause for such complaints or objections; (2) whether the Administrator or the officials of the administration have in any manner exceeded their duty in the exercise of the authority entrusted to them respectively, or have failed to exercise their respective functions honestly and justly; (3) whether, having regard to the Samoan native customs and to the due maintenance of government and order in the mandated territory, it would be prudent and safe to wholly repeal and abrogate all power to require a Samoan to remove for a definite period from one place on the islands to another. “At the outset,” says the report, “we wish to state that the widest scope to bring complaints before the commission was allowed by us. The reason for the adoption of this course was the inability of the Samoans to understand any limitation of the scope of the inquiry, and the almost childish desire manifested by them to give evidence before us without regard to the circumstances that their testimony might in the main be a reiteration of evidence already given. “We think it significant that with reference to the acts of the present and the previous administrator, both on the European and 'native sides, no act of malfeasance. misfeasance or misconduct on their part, or on the part of their European officials was charged by the complainants.” At one time, stated the report, it was suggested such charges might be made against the present administration, but absolutely no evidence of them was tendered. Furthermore except in respect of the so-called orders of banishment, of orders for the deprivation of titles, and of orders requiring natives to return from Apia to their homes, made late in 1926, or in 1927, in connection with the operations of the Mau organisation, no allegation was made that the Administrator or any of his head office officials had acted in any high-handed or arbitrary manner. The Liquor Question The complaints made regarding the enforcement of prohibition are th 1 at W ?h ed hl js ett bv the statement that the prohibition is statutory, and

It appears clear that the legislation has proved effective to prevent, so far as could reasonably be expected, the consumption of intoxicating liquor by Samoans. In any consideration which may be given to this question, it is to be remembered that many persons of mixed European and Polynesian descent have, under the Act of 1921 as amended by section 2 of the amending Act of 1926, the status of a European. By these provisions any person being the legitimate child of a father who Is a European, either by birth or registration, under the principal Act /is, unless such first-mentioned persons has been declared a Samoan, excluded from the definition of a “Samoan,” and thus becomes a “European.” Copra Policy Justified The method adopted by the local traders in fixing a common price for copra does not find favour with the Commission, which expresses the belief that there was no real competition among the traders. Futhermore,

the traders paid one price only, whatever the quality or condition of the product. The producer had no incentive to produce copra of a high grade. “It is clear,” continues the report, “that the Samoan was not in a position nor was he possessed of the knowledge necessary to enable him to deal on equal terms with the traders for his copra. The Samoans are wholly incapable of forming a cooperative marketing organisation of their own.”

The results of the Administrator’s export scheme were most satisfactory. The first shipment, on which advances of between £l6 and £l7 a ton were made to

the natives, was sold in London for £27 a ton, only 12s 6d below top price. The second shipment

was sold before arrival for £2B. “The value of the scheme, to our minds,” says the report, “lies in its providing an incentive to the Samoans to use care and attention in the preparation of copra for export, and the provision of a reward for the exercise of industry and attention to which they are not very accustomed.”

s The scheme itself is regarded as a policy question, and therefore outside d the scope of the inquiry. The report e points out, however, that the scheme ll is at present experimental, and that e the terms of the mandate may ware rant, in the interest of the natives, interference with private enterprise, t, which under other and normal condiIt tions might not be justified. It cane not be said the conditions under which e the Samoans sold their copra to the e traders were just or reasonable, o The report mentions that a desire able plan fostered by the administrah tion for encouraging the production i- of bananas and pineapples for export e to New Zealand by Government i- steamer has been checked by the i- operations of the Mau. No Extravagance The charge that the expense of carrying on the work of the administration was too high is not substantiated by the report. “The complainants,” it says, “did not attempt. to criticise the organisation and staffs of the different departments, or the salaries paid to the officer.” The evidence, it adds, was avowI edly confined to making a comt | parison between the Samoan expenditure, and that in Fiji and f Tonga, particularly Fiji. However, the figures produced in support of the charge were found, , wherever they could be checked, to be inaccurate and misleading, ii The complainants eventually adr mitted the sole ground of the _ . charge had been cut away. • I In the opening speech of counsel - | for the complainants, allegations - | were made reflecting on the efficiency r of the medical service. These charges were, at the conclusion of the evidence, withdrawn. Dictatorial Rule ? The social customs and systems of 3 government of the Samoans are ret viewed at length as a preliminary to 1 reporting upon the charges against - the administration, that it violated . numerous Samoan customs, although the actual power of the chiefs has in modern times been necessarily reduced, the chiefly titles are still ! greatly respected by the Samoans, with the result that the holders are a very numerous body. It is said that in Samoa, out of a population of about 9,507 male adults, there are about 2,958 chiefs of varying grades and j tulafales forators or councillors).

The main complaints were briefly as follows:

nificance whatever. The acceptance of the articles had no effect upon New Zealand's position in regard to Samoa. Banishments The orders of local banishment made by the Administrator against certain chiefs, orders restricting the movements of a number of natives and the taking away of titles borne by various chiefs and orators is dealt with at length by the report, which states that banishments were imposed in accordance with the law and with precedent provided by ancient Samoan custom and the policy of previous German, British and New Zealand administrations. The commission’s finding on the matter is as follow's: “It appears to us that these orders were made after a proper inquiry and that no objection can be taken to them. We are not concerned with the form in which the orders were draw'n up. The Administrator satisfied himself of the propriety of making them and gave to each person affected the opportunity of appearing before him and stating his case. We are satisfied that these orders were made upon a proper procedure and that no objection can be made to them. We are wholly unable to see that in the circumstances which obtain the Administrator was not justified in exercising such powers as he possessed to discourage the organisation of the Mau and to compel the dispersal of the natives to their respective homes. It is clear to use that the Administrator was right in his opinion that the organisation of the Mau as understood and used by the natives could not exist alongside of and concurrently with the administration of the country under the mandate. One or other must give way.”

(1) That the system of government permitted the rule of an absolute dictator, and caused officers of the administration to think that they could

carry out certain policies regardless of the customs and feelings of the Samoans.

(2) That the faipules were appointed by the present Administrator without consulting the people of their respective districts. (3) That the faipules were guilty of misconduct in the performance of their duties.

(4) That the imposition of the medical tax was unjust. (5) That there had been interference with ancient customs relating to malagas or journeys for the presentation of fine mats and the individualisation of family lands. (6) That a presentation of “emblems of sovereignty” to the Governor-Gen-eral in December, 1925, possessed political significance. (7) Complaints relating to orders made by the Administrator both before and after the creation of the Mau, requiring a native to change his place of residence, to return to his home, or to forfeit his titles.

“We are satisfied,” says the report, “that until the public meeting of October 15, 1926, there was no real dissatisfaction among the Samoans with the administration. . . . The evidence of all the native Government officials was to the effect that there was no real dissatisfaction among the natives with the administration prior to Mr. Nelson’s return in September, 1926.” The report discusses the amicable relations existing between Mr. Nelson, the administrator, and the New Zealand Government for some time previous, and to the fact that Mr. Nelson made a speech in very cordial terms at a welcome ceremony on his return, at which the administrator was present. “We are satisfied the organisation had two purposes,” the report continues. “The first was the intention to secure practically self-government for the Samoans. . . . The second purpose of the Mau was undoubtedly to frustrate and render ineffective the functioning of the administration.” Defying the Law It was clear there was an organised refusal among the members of the Mau to obey the law and regulations, to recognise the authority of the faipules and native officials, to attend district councils, to send children to the Government schools, or to attend the malagas of the Administrator and the resident commissioner. Generally speaking, there was an organised refusal to destroy the rhinoceros beetle. Between October, 1926, and July, 1927, there must have been an organised campaign throughout Samoa to spread the purposes of the Mau, and to secure adherence to it.

On the question whether the power of local banishment should be abrogated the commission says that at the inquiry there was no demand on the part of the Samoans for the repeal of the existing power, which was incorporated in Samoan custom and, even in recent years, had been exercised many times on the application of the natives themselves. The custom undoubtedly had its uses in preserving order in villages and in preventing irritation likely to result in violence.

Moreover, the power appeared to the commission to be useful in the event of native unrest. It does not think it is possible to rely wholly upon the ordinary criminal procedure. There is practically no adequate police force in the territory, the gaols are few and w'holly insufficient to accommodate a number of persons whom it might be desirable, as a safeguard, to keep in custody. The commission is therefore of opinion that it would not be prudent or safe wholly to repeal the power which, of course, ought to be exercised with wisdom and caution.

Discussing the charges seriatum, the report says the term “dictatorship” is evidently Mr. Nelson’s generalisation of the charge relating to Samoan customs. If it meant that the Administrator responsible for carrying out the mandate had the right, subject to the general supervision of the New Zealand Parliament, and the Minister of External Affairs, to lay down the policy of the administration, it was hard to see how that could be avoided.

So far as the appointment of faipules was concerned, the affirmative evidence showed the charge to be without foundation. The commission was satisfied the people of the respective districts were consulted before the appointments were made, and signified their approval. The allegations of misconduct against the faipules were, in general, of a ridiculously trivial nature. Some which might

have been regarded as serious were not supported by the evidence. Regarding the medical tax, the commission is satisfied the general trend of Samoan opinion was shown by a resolution of the fono of faipules and was favourable to the imposition of the tax. The evidence showed enormous increases in hospital attendances, after free medical treatment was instituted. The medical treatment had proved a blessing to the Samoans. The commission does not consider the action taken regarding “fine mats,” and the individualisation of family lands presses hardly on the natives. It points out that there is no absolute prohibition in the first case, or compulsion in the second. With regard to the presentation of certain “emblems of sovereignty of Samoa.” to the Governor-General of New Zealand, the commission holds the gift was made to show respect for the Governor-General in accordance with Samoan custom, and had no other sig-