THE CRISIS IN SAMOA

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 944, 10 April 1930, Page 12

THE CRISIS IN SAMOA

THE ADMINISTRATION OF SIR GEORGE RICHARDSON ' By 0. F. NELSON (Published by Arrangement) [ln this series of articles, the Hon. O. F. Kelson will write on the situation in Samoa from the Samoans’ point of view, and will trace the causes of the unrest in the Territory as seen through Samoan eyes.] V TT WAS not long after General Richardson arrived in the Territory that lie found the changes he wished to bring about were obnoxious to the Samoans, and would require much more revenue than the country could provide without assistance from somewhere. New Zealand was then paying a large subsidy to the Samoan Treasury and was hardly likely to agree to an increase of the same. The New Zealand Reparations Estates, taken over from the Germans, were then paying the penalty for the extra heavy draft drawn on them by sacrificing upkeep for profits for several years previously, and were not paying, but were shortly expected to have sufficiently revived to reach the paying basis on which the Germans had left them.

In charge of these estates was a general manager appointed from New Zealand and independent of the Administrator. That New Zealand interests in Samoa were not under the control of the Administrator did not appeal to General Richardson, who i bought there should only be one direct New Zealand representative in the Territory. The Samoa Act provided for the Chief Judge of the High Court being the Deputy-Adminis-trator to .act in place, of the Administrator in Ms absence. The Chief .Judge at .he time was Mr. C. OrrWalker, who jealously guarded the independence of the High Court from any encroachments by the executive government on the functions of the Court. The Legislative Council consisted of six paid officials and two nonofficial members, all appointed by the Administrator, but. was not recognised hv anyone outside of the Council. Toward the end of his first year of office, General Richardson visited New Zealand to consult the Minister, Sir V. A. Bell, and it was said that he had over fifty suggestions to make to rhe Government for changes he had in mind. On his return, he told the writer and others that, with one or two exceptions, the Government had agreed to all his proposed schemes. This meant that he was practically given a free hand to effect such changes or improvements as he thought fit. These changes were soon put in force. The Reparations Estates were placed under a Board of Control, with the Administrator as the executive head, and the general manager was dispensed with. The Chief Judge ceased to be the deputy-admin-istrator, and the appointment was left to the Administrator to fill when required. The Legislative Council was to have three elected representatives of the Europeans, with Samoan members nominated by the Administrator, in addition to the six official members also appointed by the Administrator.

The first election for the European representatives to the Legislative Council was held early iu 192 4. The Samoans were not consulted a 3 to who should represent them in the Council, nor we.fe any native members appointed. Instead of this, High Chief Tamasese was banished from his home at Vaimoso for disobeying an order of General Richardson in respect to a boundary hedge around his property. Afamasaga, another Samoan chief, was for brewing home-made beer above 3 per cent, proof spirit, after he had been fined by the High Court for the same offence. Ultimately, Afamasaga was found by the court, in the winding up of his bankrupt estate, to have misappropriated some £7OO of Samoan Church trust money, and was sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment. Afamasaga was oue of the Samoan witnesses who lately returned to Samoa from Auckland, where he was called to appear as witness in a Supreme Court case. Tamasese, in addition to his banishment for an indefinite period, “during the pleasure’.’ of the Administrator, was also ordered to cease answering to his chiefly title of Tamasese, and to assume the name of “Leolofi.” Afamasaga was re-christened Lago lago. Many other leading Samoans were similarly treated, but the Administrator, in every instance where a “matai” or family name was removed, had the foresight to know that the victim liad to be known by some name or number, and, instead of numbering them like the Government’s Chinese coolies in Samoa, he had the courtesy to include in the order a new name to which the exiled Samoan was to answer. In the minutes of the Royal Commission (19.27), when Tamasese was giving evidence, the term of his banishment was questioned by the Commissioners, as follows: Judge McCormick: The order taking away the title, Mr. Baxter, nas to be for a specified period. That ordinance clearly prescribes that the time must be in the order. . . . Mr. Baxter: That is an order where there is no time specified, so my friend, Mr. Meredith (counsel for Administration) advises me. The Chairman (Chief Justice Sir Charles Skerrett of New Zealand) : Was there a fixed time in this order? Mr. Meredith: No. The Chairman: It does not appear to follow the Statute at all. In Common Law that would be read as a banishment for life. Apart from the question raised by my colleague, it looks as if that order did not. the Statute Book at all. In the findings of the Royal Commission, no reference was made to this very important matter, although it was one of the complaints of the Samoans which developed into the upheaval which was the outcome of General Richardson's administration. By the middle of 1926, over fifty Samoans of rank had been banished from their domicile to other parts of the islands and their titles or matai names removed. At this time, the writer was on a health trip to Australia, and was pressed by his friends (natives and whites) in Samoa to make representations to the New \ Zealand Government regarding the serious unrest growing out of these drastic measures imposed on the Samoans, and the many other matters, referred to above, iu respect of un-

sound finance and inefficient public service. To none of these, the root causes of the Samoan unrest, lias either the morning paper’s “special representative” or “Papalagi” referred. CAUSE AND EFFECT It must, however, be remembered that unrest or even revolt is an effect and not a cause. The attempt therefore to blame the Mau (which is the “effect” of New Zealand’s bungling methods and not the “cause” of the trouble) for the wholesale slaughter of unarmed Samoans, and the longwaged war on women and children, cannot possibly be taken seriously by fair-minded people. Nor "will it divert their attention from the urgent necessity of bringing to justice those who were directly aud indirectly responsible for the crimes committed’on the Samoan people, and thus save New I Zealaud from further disgrace. If Ihe methods introduced by General Richardson with the consent, or by the direction, of the New Zealand Government as enumerated above are the “democratic measures” referred to by “Papalagi,” then the Samoans will have none of them. Much rather would they continue under the rule of what he calls the “3,000 disgruntled chiefs,” who by liis own description constitutes a couucil wherein every family or “social unit” is represented, and is thus much more “democratic” than the system now in force in New Zealand, even in its present stage of civilisation. Dr. Peter Buck, in his address on Polynesian culture early this week, further confirmed the views of the Samoans as already sup ported by Sir Maui Pomare and Sir Apirana Ngata that the Samoans have a culture which might well be left alone, as New Zealand has nothing to offer in its replacement. Will “Papalagi” or any other Press correspondent in New Zealand challenge the wisdom of such authorities as the three mentioned here?