Samoan Viewpoints

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 239, 29 December 1927, Page 16

Samoan Viewpoints

CAUSES FOR DISAFFECTION

Sidelights on Commission’s Findings

AN interesting review of the situation in Samoa is given by THE SUN’S Apia correspondent, who presents some sidelights on the report of the Royal Commission and the preliminary proceedings.

APIA, December 17. A FTER the departure of the Royal Commission by the Tofua there was quite a lull in political affairs, here, and after the strenuous time while the commission sat, everyone was glad of the chance of a breather until the report was made public. There was not much difference of opinion as to what the nature of the report would be. Occasional remarks from the chairman and other Indications all pointed to the conclusion that the Administration would be strongly supported in its actions, and that the members of the Citizens’ Committee had failed to convince the commission that they had anything to complain about in the only matters the commissioners considered it necessary to deal with. There was considerable disappointment when the news came through that Parliament in New Zealand had adjourned before the report of the Royal Commission had been released, and that even the report of the Joint Committee on the petition to Parliament, organised by the Citizens’ Committee, to the effect that it had no recommendation to make, was not forthcoming until the dying hours of the session, when only a desultory debate was possible. DRAWING THE ATTACK The manner in which the Samoan petition to Parliament was dealt with has been subject to some comment. It was sent from here through the Administrator, and presented in the usual way. The Hon. Mr. Nelson and Mr. A. G. Smyth were delegated to proceed to New Zealand with the files, and give evidence in support of the petition before a Select Committee of both Houses to which the petition had been referred. The Deputy-Adminis-trator, Colonel Hutchen, also left here to attend before the committee, and wjlile Sir John Findlay appeared for the petitioners, Mr. M. Myers appeared for the Administration. The proceedings were taken in camera, and after Mr. Nelson had given evidence and been under cross-examina-tion for several days, there came the announcement of the setting up of a Royal Commission, and the sittings of the committee were abandoned after all that Mr. Nelson could testify to had been disclosed, and without Colonel Hutchen being asked to refute a single charge, which had been preferred, or disclose the Administrator’s defence.

Then followed the sitting of the Royal Commission here, and now comes a summary of the report by radio. When it is realised that in a small community like this there are only two sides—the supporters of the Administration, and those “agin the Government” —it is difficult to convey an impartial view. In official circles report is regarded as a complete

vindication of the actions of the Administrator and the New Zealand Government. The other side views it as a one-sided judgment on what is now past, which contains no reference or recommendation as to any future line of action, and which sidesteps vital questions affecting the Europeans on the grounds that these are political problems and “questions of policy,” upon which they have not felt constrained to express any opinion or make any suggestion. Two questions which have disturbed the European population are the prohibition issue and the competition of the Administration In the copra trade. On the question of keeping the Europeans in Samoa “dry” the commissioners decline to report; and after reviewing the position of the sale of native copra through private and Government channels, the commissioners say, “We have not found it necessary to come to any determination . . .

nor do we think it a material matter for our inquiry.” That attitude of a costly and highly-qualified tribunal has not been of a nature to inspire even the few impartial observers with great confidence In the result of its labours, as these serious problems still, exist and must be settled some day. GAPS IN OFFICIAL SUMMARY Private advice from New Zealand fills in some of the gaps in the official summary of the commissioners’ report, and also indicates that certain important findings were withheld from the official press precis issued in New Zealand. One complaint against the Administration was that traders’ licences had been cancelled without legal right and without any reasons being given. On this important point the commission reported that "the purported cancellation of licences was of no effect, there being no licences to cancel. The position was misconceived by the Administrator’s legal advisers.” Why this finding, which was of considerable concern to many traders, was not communicated officially in the summary broadcast has not yet been made clear. So, too, in the matter of the “Book of Laws,” about which the Permanent Mandates Commision had evinced some curiosity and asked for copies, only to be informed there were none available. This book, in the Samoan language, was issued by the Administrator as a collection of “all the laws, Orders-in-Council, and regulations affecting Samoans.” But it was contended by the Mau supporters that it went beyond the laws, and included mere resolutions of the Fono pules which were just pious opinions of that body and had no binding force. The Royal Commission found that the Administrator prepared the collection, and that “in this book he included some resolutions of the Fono of Fai-

pules which were only advisory and experimental, and which were not enforceable under any sanction. . . . Technically, of course, It was a mistake to include these experimental and advisory resolutions among the enforceable and binding laws.” This finding of the commission, like its decision on the cancellation of the traders’ licences, was not mentioned in the radioed summary, nor, It is understood, was it sent out to the New Zealand Press.

On the questions of finance and medical service the objections previously raised by the Citizens’ Committee were withdrawn at the inquiry, and admitted by the objectors to be without foundation; while on the important question of banishments and deprivation of tribal titles the Administration is entirely upheld by the commissioners. They make no recommendation as to the future use of this power, beyond the concluding and significant sentences which conclude the lengthy report: “We are, therefore, of opinion that it is not prudent or safe wholly to repeal the power which we are considering, p.nd, further, that no demand exists for such a repeal. The power, of course, ought to be exercised with wisdom and caution.” The arguments and discussions about the findings of the Royal Commission had scarcely begun to simmer down when the news spread round that Messrs. Nelson, Smyth and Gurr had been called before the Administrator yesterday to show cause why they should not be deported from Samoa. It was rumoured that they were to be deported by the Tofua, leaving to-day, and there was an influx of excited supporters of the Mau to Apia. The true position was explained to them, and at the time of writing it is not clear whether these proceedings are seriously intended to end in actual deportation, or whether the threat is a preliminary to a general Christmas armistice between the opposing parties with a view to seek a path for a peaceful and prosperous New Year.