Citizens Say

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 1069, 5 September 1930, Page 8

Citizens Say

(To the Editor.)

MR. NELSON AND THE SAMOAN QUESTION—CLERGYMEN AND VIVISECTION—LET'S HAVE THE TRUTH ABOUT WAR!—RACING SUPPORTERS TOO SILENT UNDER HOSTILE CRITICISM.

WHY NOT TRUTH? Sir,— About this war book criticism: Let us have the brutal. stark truth from those who have suffered and endured to make the world safe for democracy at the estimated cost of forty-five thousand million pounds. Let senseless, profitless war, stripped of all romance and sentiment, be exhibited in all its ghastliness to the suffering world. It may help to prevent a repetition of its horrors. WILLIAM PERRY. Great Barrier Island. TELEGRAPHING BETS * I hope tho racing clubs and sports bodies are taking some action which will help to pass the Bill enabling us to telegraph money to the totalisator. You publish an account of a deputation, from opponents of the Bill, to the Acting-Prime Minister. There is no doubt whatever but that these people are in the minority, but they make a big noise and appear to represent more people than they really do. It seems to me that some real push is required if racing clubs and sportsmen generally are to get justice. Just a word of appreciation of your paper, which presents the news jn a very good way. A. JAMES. Paeroa. SAMOAN BANISHMENTS Sir.— Who is “Upu Moni” and what is he driving at in liis letter in your yesterday’s issue? What was his challenge and who is the “man who cannot defend himself?” Tio asks for “the name of one victim to Sir George Richardson’s ’autocracy.’ ” Does he not know that the banishment of the late High Chief Tamasese in 1924 was condemned by Sir Charles Skerrett in the Royal Commission report (page 91): “It does not appear to follow the statute at all. In common law that would read as a banishment for life. Apart from the question raised by my colleague, it looks as if that order did not really follow the statute-book at all.” Does he not know of the hundred and more Samoans who were banished without the least semblance of a judicial trial? When I petitioned the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in 1928 for leave to appeal against Sir George Richardson’s order of deportation from my native country for five years, 1 was told that leave to appeal could not be granted because tho deportation order was not a “judicial” act, and the Privy Council therefore had no jurisdiction. This

must naturally be true of all the banishment. uml deportation orders issued, under “Sir George Richardson’s autocracy.” Why does not “Upu Moni” sign his own name, if lie has no ulterior motive in remaining anonymous? Because “banishment” was said to be a. Samoan custom and used by the Samoans in olden days, and even now 03 tho Mau, what justification does that give to a New Zealand Administrator to use such “backward” practices? It is said that some of the Island chiefs of old ordered their people to be roasted for a break - fast, but does that entitle a British Administrator to do the same now? Even if the authority for local banishment were contained in an ordinance under the seal of l)r. Self,” does it follow that that would be a worthy example for a New Zealand Administrator to follow, if one-half of the bad things published against the Germans during the late world war were true? «.o ßec^use * as “Upu Moni” claims, Samoa is without a universally accepted Royal Family,” does that offer any reason why the Samoans should not be restored their "independence and autonomy” guaranteed by Britain. America and Germany in 18S9? Brinow recognises the Governments ot tho u.b.A.. France, and many other nations which have overthrown their former Royal Families; why then should Samoa be singled out by “Upu Moni as being unworthy of recognltion as a nation in this regard? Lft Upu Moni ’ disclose his identity, and then it would be seen whether lie is trying to keep a nice job at the expense of the long-suffering Samoans. if } ie will sav what his challenge was there wil! be no difficulty in bowling him out of his shell. 0 . O. F. NELSON. September 5, 1930. VIVISECTION Sir.— Your correspondent. “Visitor," in liis letter published in your issue of September 2, states that he did not see :mv clergymen present at Mr. Walker’s locture on “Vivisection.’’ I should, however, like to inform "Visitor” that there “ r three clerical gentlemen present. I myself spoke to one of them. In all other respects I can heartily endorse all -Visitor's'’ remarks. With regard to the crueltv of Vivisection: When people realise the amount of torture inflicted on dumb animals behind the doors of our laboratories, the public conscience will Lcconie thoroughly aroused and the hateful practice will be entirely ,bWhen that dav arrives w. “‘T thP sntisf;, ction of realising and Physically for we shall have removed the blot of practis-

ing what has been rightly called the “meanest of crimes” and we shall ha'® cleaner bodies and lead healthier liv ®i by making impossible the inoculation o our human systems with all kinds ° loathsome cultures obtained from eased animals. Is it any wonder every few years some hitherto known human disease makes its a, poarance in our midst. R. H. MILLIARDSecretary, British Union for t Abolition of Vivisection. NOTICE TO CORRESPONDENT “Photo.”— That’s an old one. He looking at a portrait of his son* Editor, The Sun.