SAMOAN AFFAIRS

Dominion, Volume 20, Issue 297, 14 September 1927, Page 10

SAMOAN AFFAIRS

REPORT IN LONDON PAPER POSITION NOT CORRECTLY STATED EVIDENCE QUESTION AGAIN Several questions relating to the Samoan situation were asked in the House of Representatives yesterday. The Prime Minister intimated that to-day or to-morrow he would make a statement indicating the Government’s attitude in regard to placing before the Royal Commission the evidence heard by the Joint Committee of both Houses. The first questioner was Mr. T. M. Wilford (Hutt), who asked the Prime Minister whether he had seen the references to the Samoan position contained in an article which appeared in the London “Morning Post” of July 30, telegraphed by the paper’s Auckland correspondent. Large type . captions stated: “Petition to King,” “Samoan Chiefs Angry,” “Rule Unduly Harsh,” “Deportations Without Trial.” Mr. Wilford wanted to know whether it did not appear from the article itself that the headlines were not a fair resume of the position then or to-day. The Prime Minister said that the headlines did not convey the correct information, and the captions, together with the contents of the article, had been trenchantly dealt with by the High Commissioner for New Zealand in London. “I am glad the member has brought the matter up,” added the Prime Minister, “as the article is not a correct resume of the position as it existed then or as it exists at present.” Availability of Evidence. • The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. 11. E. Holland) asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the desirability of the evidence taken by the Joint Committee of both Houses being made available to the Royal Commission, he would take steps to ensure that the committee would report to the House in order that the evidence might reach the Commission in a constitutional way. The Prime Minister was further asked whether he would make a full statement as to what had been done in connection with the' evidence in the meantime, and whether, in view of the fact that heavy expenses would be involved in the presentation of evidence to the Royal Commission bv the Samoans, he would give instructions to have recalled the order forbidding natives to contribute to the Mau fund, which was being utilised to defray the expenses mentioned. The Prime Minister replied that he would intimate to-day or to-morrow (he Government’s attitude ' : n connection with the evidence question. The Mau funds were a matter that was in the hands of the Administrator, and whether information could be obtained on that score he was unable to say.