A CHALLENGE OF £l00

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 1003, 20 June 1930, Page 10

A CHALLENGE OF £loo

MR. 0. F. NELSON REPLIES TO SUN CORRESPONDENT THE SAMOAN SITUATION Recently a correspondent ot Th e Sun signing himself “Up u y on . stated, among other things, that Mr H E. Holland M.P.. would modify attitude toward Samoa if h© u., that it "meant the political enslat. ment of 36,000 kindly, law-abiding native people.*’ The Hon. O. F Nelson has forwarded the following tetter to the editor of The Sun. challenging the remarks e"Upu Moni." ntly n T- e s - tains one mass of inaccu tries’ f elf “ rnoor.. . . n CT ‘dent:v tn an. to df. rna and support. I PU Moni” attacks Mr. H E. land s advocacy of the Samoani-h-? 01 ' sav in the - ‘i „i ' n ri « h t t ; I). ~ 7' ' ot Lheir own countrr net-e ot er 90 per cent, of the inhab - p wirfeve°r d^ amoaiis l Holland's cndenLT™ " Eotw SlVe ta r Tot Govern ment !<atef :hat Mr - Holland-. offence is the more prominent in thar.is p.ir.r stands for democracy and complete reversal of New ZeaUndt policies, which have already caused M much bloodshed in Samoa? To say that Mr. Holland wou rt modily his attitude if he knew that he was “adt'oeating the restoration ♦> power of a. Samoan ruling- cas*® steeped in the lore of the race” and “that it means the political enslavement of 36,00" kindly. law-abidii»c native people.*’ is ridiculous. even though it is perfectly true that the Samoans are as a whole A kindlv, ia V - abiding native people." Would “UpMoni” say that the treatment mated out to the Samoans ever since Zealand occupied the islands anrt more especially since December 2S last, was worthy of any British Dominion or due to a “kindlv. lawabiding- native people”? And if “Upu Moni has studied the proclamatior ordinances and Orders-in-Councii granting more and more power of ]jf r and death over the unrepresented Samoans to the Xew Zealand Administrator. would he say conscientiously that the Samoans could possibly hawbeen more enslaved to the Samoan ruling- caste” than they have anrt still are to the word of one man appointed by a foreign country? “ENTIRELY WRONG" “The males of the ruling caste represent somethim: under 10 per cent, o* the entire native population and from these hereditary candidates the holders of titles are selected.” continues “Upu Moni.” Would the w riter of this afijv humbug be prepared to accept a challenge of £IOO (to be paid to any charity) that he is entirely wrong and that the “matais” or heads of families whom he is pleased to call “the ruling caste” are selected by, and representative of, as nearly as possible 100 per cent, of the native people, even though there are occasional disputes as to who sh >uld assume the family matai nam**? If he is, then I am prepared to argu* the matter out with him before anv arbitrator agreed on. In his reckless attempt to establish something which he does not make clear. ‘X’pu Moni” states that “the faipule of a large district is thus named by his family alone, without reierence to th*-* people who have pe--force to accord him obedience.” The law as it now' stands provides for the Administrator alone the power to appoint the faipules. and so far as the

real Samoan system is concerned I am prepared to repeat the above challenge on the same terms and am very doubtful if even under the Administrator’s prerogative to appoint the faipules that such an eventuality has ever, or could have, happened. If the slogan “Samoa for th*Samoans” was really put into the mouths of tile natives by Sir George Richardson, and I do not deny this statement, then why did the Royal Commission take such pains and time to try to lay the blame for this iden on the Citizens’ Committee, and ultimately cause the drastic deportation without trial, of three of that body, including one Samoan-born who has los' heavily as a result of the unrest aiui who still holds the confidence of the Samoans? SAMOAN RULERS’ RIGHTS Upu Moni” challenges the statement that “Sir George Richardson began to apply the principles of local banishment and to tell the Samoans to take lower names instead of chiefly names.” For the third time I repeat the above challenge and say that no Samoan ruler, whether of the “ruling caste’* or not, ever assumed the right to remove any chiefly name or titl<* from anyone other than those on whom he claimed the right of bestowal, and slso that no Samoan king or rok»ever banished anyone by right except in war time, orther than such as held tenancy from him. Banishment wa c I certainly the right of the village or , district con-:nunity—and thus a demoi eratic measure—imposed only on »ucn as were repugnant to the peace, order I and good government of the coml munity. j “Upu Moni" concludes with the j statement. “I shall be glad if Mr. Holj land will tell me of one instance where j Sir George Richardson, before j Mau became active in early 1927. dej graded or banished a Samoan witbotr referring to the faipule and district councils for a decision.” It is evident by this statement that “Upu Moni’ writes with promise of Backing of official documents, but will he give instance where any one Samoan banished by General Sir George Richardson was banished in accordance with Samoan custom? Banishmerwas only resorted to by the Samoan" in the absence of gaols and other j forms of punishment, but when one* 1 j these were introduced Dr. Solf, ibe first German Governor, ordered the Samoans to take recourse to the court* ! rather than adhere to their old-tima customs. ' It has never be*>n the right of the ; faipules or too district councils of the Samoans - . exercise the prerogative of banishment, either with or without the order of the King, Ruler or Governor, so if the rule of the 4.000 of the ruling caste meant enslavement to ! the Samoans, is it r.Dt more so when these powers are vested in the Administrator, appointed by a foreign • country, through his own appointed 3* Faipules? If Xew Zealand is prepared to trust all legislation to some members of Parliament elected by people out of over one million, wuat harm can there l»e in the Samoan** allowing 400 matais. each elected by family groups, to legislate for th® Samoans as a whole? The Samoan system provides for the authority emanating from the individual agreeing his matai, the village council in which his matai has a seat being represented ,in the appointment of the distil®* councillor, and from then upward j the representatives in the Centra* j Government. Is this system not democratic than that prevailing e y c *'! now in New Zealand? “Upu Mori” x« , Samoan for “the true word.” but has ho uttered one atom of truth in bw* article? How much has he contribute i toward a settlement of the SamoaI unrest 0 What was his object writing, anyway? My challenges ! stand for him to accept or rejectO. F. XFLSON-