SAMOAN AFFAIRS

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 877, 22 January 1930, Page 10

SAMOAN AFFAIRS

OUR NATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY NEED FOR PUBLIC INTEREST “It is the duty of all schools of ; thought to make public their views on ! the vital Samoan question before our national responsibility is further com- - mitted,” says Mr. P. B. Fitzherbert, of Auckland, who has written the following letter to The Sun: Although the words British justice stand for an abstraction not easy to define; although it is a concept upon which there may be no complete general agreement, yet British people, out of their sufferings, experiences and reflections, have evolved a very definite s£nse as to what is right and what is wrong. No one man has a monoply of the sense of justice, and, probably, no one man is capable of devising or expounding rules and regulations whereby justice may be administered to the satisfaction of everybody. But there is present in every community of British people, a sound sense of justice and fair play. As a naiton, it has been a source of great pride for us to feel that, since the accession of Queen Victoria, our Empire has been directed by honourable, just and incorruptible men, and that our dealings with other nations have created a world-wide feeling of trust and confidence in the British system. We have been proud of this conceit of ourselves and we are jealous of it. If any man or set of men, in discharge of public duties offend against our sense of justice or fair 1 play, we should, as we do in our games and amusements, rise as one man and indicate our indignant displeasure. Of later years, there have been things done in this country by oublic men that strongly offend our sense of fair play and, yet, we have stood by inarticulate. Let us particularise on Samoan affairs. There have been a series of unconstitutional, illegal and unfair actions by our public men in relation to Samoa and the Samoan people ever since the end of the war. In the first place, we have to consider the scope of the mandate and what the words used were intended to convey to the outside world —to the neutrals. The words used were: “Inasmuch as the Samoan people are unable to stand by themselves alone, they are to be handed over to the protection of the mandatory power.” Exactly how the dispensers of mandates came to the conclusion that the Samoans were unable to stand by themselves, is not easy to understand. They are almost exactly the same people as the Tongans. The Tongans have their own Queen, stand by themselves and govern themselves, with singular felicity. If the Tongans, why not the Samoans? Obviously the words used meant, if anything, that the mandatory power was to afford advice and protection to the Samoan and assist him toward standing by himself, namely, toward self-government. Absolute annexation was not intended, in fact, was clearly disavowed at the time. Nevertheless, New Zealand, after the war, continued possession of Samoa, lock, stock and barrel. Without consulting or enlightening the people of New Zealand and without consulting or seeking the consent of the Samoan people, the Cabinet of New Zealand framed a policy to be inflicted upon unwilling Samoa, and appointed a military Administrator to carry it out. The ex-Administrator is a fine soldier and, no doubt, is a fine man, but he came of just that one school of thought that rendered it impossible for him to bring happiness or self-government to the people of Samoa. The best that can be said is that this appointment was a mistake. But it was not a mistake that an Order-in-Council was made, empowering the Administrator to banish Samoans who raised their voices in political opposition to his plans. That was not a mistake, but a deliberate act in direct violation of principles that British subjects and even lawyers confidently believed were part and parcel of our Constitution. Most lawyers are of the decided opinion that any judgment to the contrary is not well founded. A belated justification of the actual banishments was that. in earlier days, Samoans had banished Samoans. A preposterous argument. In still earlier days, it has been rumoured, Sampans decapitated and ate Samoans, ergo, the white man may decapitate and eat Samoans by virtue of well-established precedent. Then, again, the military Administrator whose administration was actually on trial, was himself appointed to the assembly that had his stewardship under review. It is said that precedents may be found for any action, but it is doubtful if a precedent can be found in British law where a Judge has been appointed to try himself. These proceedings in connection with Samoa and the Samoans, taken separately, are bad enough, but, taken together, offend violently our sense of fair play. Yet we have an important personage proclaiming “that the Samoans’ grievances, if any, will be inquired into.” Mark the words “if any.” Finally, we have the infamously tactless attempt to arrest a somebody wanted by the police, under such circumstances that it would have been miraculous had the arrest been peaceably effected. The death of Constable Abraham is very deeply regretted indeed, he was acting in the course of his bounden duty, but the slaughter and wounding of some 40 Samoans, obviously for the most part by machine-gun fire, is a dreadful tragedy deplored and mourned by all decent British people and, for which, amends must be made at all costs. Yet, the first act of reconciliation is to send H.M.S. Dunedin to Apia and to disembark her armed forces. There is only one safe and honourable course to take; that is to withdraw the whole of our armed forces, to grant amnesty to all Samoans and invite the Samoan people to elect members of a constitutional assembly, and to appoint to advisory positions men who are soundly qualified and understand something of Polynesian culture. It is all very glib and trite to say that our prestige must not be allowed to suffer, and that law and order must be maintained at all costs. As for prestige, it will be a miracle if a shred of it is still left fluttering in the wide Pacific, and it is certainly not to be saved 1 by perpetrating more savagery upon an inoffensive and lovable people, who have been driven to deep resentment if not to actual defiance, by a sequence of injustices which bring shame upon us all. As for law and order, the people of New Zealand are entitled to know what laws have been broken and to what extent by each offender: whether the Samoans have accepted such laws; by whom they were promulgated md under whose authority. When these questions have been fully answered, it will be time enough for the people of New Zealand to decide whether they wish these promulgations enforced at the point of the bayonet or not. This is no matter of party politics, but a grave subject of international importance involving our reputation as a humane and Christian civilisation. It is the duty of all schools of thought to make public their views on this vital question. before our ! national responsibility is further com- , mitted. _____