“2G WAKING HOURS”

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 1012, 1 July 1930, Page 1

“2G WAKING HOURS”

SIR THOMAS HENLEY’S j KNOWLEDGE OF SAMOA MR. 0. F. NELSON’S OPINION ■ “The Samoans have to learn to work since they want all the comforts o£ j civilisation,” said Sir Thomas Henley K.8.E., a New South Wales politician, in an interview in The Sun yesterday. Mr. O. F. Nelson replies in a letter to The Sun, to the statements made by Sir Thomas who, he says. I was “only about 20 waking hours in j Samoa and knows no word of the: native tongue.” The letter reads as follow: Sir,The first and only time Sir Thomas i Henley visited Apia (Western Samoa) j was in 1928, and he could not have , stayed more than 20 waking hours. Under the pretence of being an unbiased visitor he was granted audience with the late High Chief Tamasese. and accepted other hospitality offering. But since then he has hardly missed an ■ opportunity to abuse all those in • Samoa and elsewhere who believe in 1 justice and fair play for the Samoans. His latest outburst was contained in Jon interview published in The Sun ; yesterday, and after accusing the two j main political parties in New Zealand ! for the troubles in Samoa and condemning the “New Zealand Samoa Guardian,” he stated: “A firm government (in Samoa) is wanted, and it is necessary to be apparently cruel to be kind. The Samoans have to learn how to work since they want all the comforts of civilisation, comforts which have to be paid for. If they wish to become partners in the concern they have to work and take their share of the cost, and not continue to go on loafing.” This is not only a most unwarranted attack but it is a cowardly one. The Samoans produce over SO per cent, of the copra output of the territory and contribute about the same percentage of the total public revenue in direct and indirect taxation. “They have to work and pay (more than) their share of the cost,” so why should Sir Thomas Henley or anyone else be allowed to say they were loafing? Why should tlie Samoans “wish to become partners in the concern” when they have always been the proprietors of that concern? How much more cruelty does ho (Sir Thomas) advocate than the measures adopted on the Samoans since 1924. and more especially since December 28, last? i Owing to some remarks to the Press Iby SJt* Thomas Henley, anu other ! actions, after his visit to Samoa, the J “New Zealand Samoa Guardian,” of ' Juno 13. 1929, published some unpalatable borne truths, so it is perhaps only natural for him to wish that the little paper was suppressed. He has written a book on “Tonga and Samoa,” which is said to be now in the publisher's hands, and he claims to have made a study of the problems of these islands. What personal firsthand knowledge can anyone acquire after less than two days’ stay among people whose language he does not speak or understand? What possible is there for such a book except to befog the issue still further? If Sir Thomas Henley can suggest means whereby New Zealand can gain the confidence of the Samoans to whom the territory lawfully belongs and cause them to forgive—if they cannot forget—the terrible past, he will render a service. Force and cruelty, which he advocates, have been tried and liaye failed. O. F. NELSON.