SAMOA STRIFE

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 894, 11 February 1930, Page 9

SAMOA STRIFE

COMMENT ON INQUEST VERDICT REV. MR. GREENWOOD’S VIEWS The following letter has been received by The Sun from the Rev. A. J. Greenwood, vicar of St. Alban’s, on the subject of Chief Judge Luxford's findings in the recent Samoan inquest: Sir. — May I crave your indulgence for a few comments on your leader of the Hth inst.? My only excuse for so doing is the great uational, if not indeed international, importance of the Samoan question. The verdict delivered by Judge Luxford, so far as it lias been made public, does not exonerate the authorities of the mandated territory to anything like the extent the Prime Minister seems so anxious to convey. In the first place, it must be remembered that the judge was severely handicapped in finding a full verdict by the refusal to grant the privilege of safe conduct to certain essential witnesses, whose testimony might have put an entirely different complexion on the whole incident. Other important eyewitnesses like Mr. Polley and Mrs. A. Cross were not called upon to testify as to what they have both publicly stated they actually witnessed. Surely this was an omission of very grave import. There is also the fact that certain persons were killed in the native village some distance from the scene of the encounter between the police and the Mau procession. It is hardly conceivable that so many persons should have been killed or wounded at such a distance by either revolver or rifle fire. Sergeant Waterson admits that he fired a Lewis gun into the ground in front of the people, but he does not state, so far as I have seen, how- far in front of the people. Sergeant Waterson, an experienced machine-gunner, must have \ known perfectly well that such shooting was, to put it mildly, likely to result in casualties. Bullets fired from a machine-gun in such a way would naturally ricochet. I have handled a Lewis gun myself, and have had some experience of what devilish mischief the nasty things can do. Even if we admit the truth of what Sergeant Waterson has stated, those deaths in the native village have yet to be accounted for. Judge Luxford rightly deprecates the firing of rifles into the crowd, but what about the unwisdom of allowing the police to carry revolvers? Surely that was an incitement to hit back with some vigour. Even a Samoan values his life and it was hardly to be expected that be would stand quietly by while an excited policeman was shooting at him. Neither you, nor I, Mr. Editor, would be likely to do that. Your leader very rightly commends A TEMPERATE VERDICT Judge Luxford for the ability and fairness he has displayed in his careful and temperate verdict; but you go on 10 say that the leaders of the Mau had been warned fairly of the intention of the authorities to eifect certain arrests from the ranks of a gala procession of natives, which warning was iguored with a defiant spirit. I do not think that this statement quite fits the facts. "What has been shown is, that the Administrator told Inspector Braisby to tell a man named Kruse to tell the Mau to tell the "wanted” men to keep out of the procession. This I take it can hardly be considered a warning sufficient to justify the use of lethal weapons upon an unarmed mass of people on holiday bent. You quote further that ‘there was no intention to practise violence, though it is possible that the wellintentioned authorities had not given sufficient thought to the risk of provoking a disorderly outbreak.” If this be so why were rifles, revolvers and machine-guns so carefully disposed as to cover the whole crowd? if the authorities were so guilelessly innocent of the possibility of violence whatever induced them to send armed police into the procession and also to place snipers and machine-gunners at advantageous points? If the placing of riflemen and machine-gunners in strategic positions “did not include anything in the way of offensive measures against the procession” what in the name of common-sense did it “include?” Again you say. reviewing the verdict, “Mr. Luxford also makes it clear that it was the serious active resistance to ihe police when the arrest of a fugitive native was attempted . . . that endangered the lives of the arresting party. That menacing resistance brought into operation the precautionary measures which in practice led to deplorable results.” THE MAU’S ATTITUDE I fail to see what previous action of the Mau justified such so-called precautionary measures. That organisation had never on any single occasion threatened the Administration with

I violence, so it must be conceded that the measures taken were in themj selves provocative of a breach of the peace, for they would be regarded by , the people as threats of violence. ! It seems to me that the crux of the position lies in this: Who started i real violent action? The bare fact i that a policema.n grabbed a Samoan 1 and a tussle ensued did not, in my opinion, constitute a position of danger to the arresting constables. Similar happenings occur in Auckland | almost every day, especially when a few drunken stokers are on shore — but who would justify a policeman re- ! sorting to lethal weapons in such circumstances? If such things were allowed in New Zealand, where violent ; criminals are not uncommon, all our cemeteries would be filled in six months, and the policemen out of employment. i Is the life of a drunken stoker of more value than that of a prince of i Samoa? The Samoans are well known as gentle, kindly and religious people and it is not their nature to create violence, as those who have lived for some years among them should know quite well. The fact that the procession was able to reform within a few minutes of the firing and march oft to continue its programme of welcome to Mr. Smyth is sorely not without significance. No stronger evidence of the peaceful intentions of the Mau could have been given than this. You say in conclusion: "It is difficult to understand the reason for sending to Samoa a Minister who knows nothing about the territory or the temperament of its discontented natives.” Having studied the psychology of our present Cabinet, I do not think it is at all difficult, for is it not on a par with all their former actions in connection with the mandated territory? The plain fact of the matter is that if an experienced and unbiased Minister should be sent down he would make such discoveries as would make the position of the Government untenable. The attitude assumed by the Government in this matter is simply deplorable, and may lead to results too dreadful to contemplate. I do not for one moment intend suggesting that the Government should give in to the Samoan agitation, but I do suggest it is a heinous crime to bustle and harry those unhappy people without giving them an opportunity for stating their own case. Public feeling throughout the Dominion is now being thoroughly aroused to the fact that there is a serious case for this Government to answer. [The Su n’s editorial comment was based on the facts presented to the public by Chief Judge Luxford, and in the article it was pointed out that Mr. Luxford had made it quite clear that there had been “an outstanding error of judgment on the part of the authorities or their authoritative servants." Moreover, the article urged the Government to exercise conciliatory sympathy, as well as essential firmness. Ed., The Sun.]