SAMOAN INQUIRY

Dominion, Volume 21, Issue 7, 3 October 1927, Page 8

SAMOAN INQUIRY

ALLEGED INTERFERENCE WITH COMMISSION NEWSPAPER ARTICLE DECLARED IMPROPER OBJECT OF THE MAU (Special to Press Association, by Radio.) Apia, September 30. An article in the “Samoa Guardian,” alleging “attempted interference bv the Administration with the Royal Commission,” and a report of the same newspaper of proceedings in Chambers, were brought to the attention of tlie Commission. Mr. Meredith said that lie thought the article a direct allegation that the Administrator was interfering with the Commission. Messrs. Baxter and Slipper, counsel for the Citizens’ Committee’ disclaimed connection with, or knowledge of, the article or the report. The allegations put into his mouth respecting General Richardson were untrue, said Mr. Baxter. He added that he and Mr. Slipper were not prepared to retain their briefs if they were not fully trusted by the committee and the natives. Sir Charles Skerrett said that the Court regarded the article as a very improper one, and it had the power to punish the authors. The members of the Court did not propose to take any further action than to say that the suggestion of interference, or attempted interference, on the part of the Administration with the procedure ol the Commission was destitute of any foundation in fact. The reference to the proceedings in Chambers showed that the writer of the article was singularly destitute of a knowledge of normal legal procedure. The suggestion that Chamber proceedings were held for anv other reason than t expedite and facilitate- the Court’s general proceedings was ludicrous. Three traders gave evidence that their licenses had been cancelled for no reasons thev knew of. lhey admitted that thev were members of the Mau and distributed literature, and in one case carried Mau supporters at half rates in Mr. Nelson’s vessel, by order of the firms. Ale Liu, a Samoan native, complained that his title had been taken -from him. The banishment of natives he considered very wrong. Cross-examined, he admitted that he himself had asked for two natives to be banished from his village. He did •not think those banishments very wrong. Those natives Lad got up against him.

(Rec. October 2, 5.5 p.m.) Apia, September 30. At the Commission, Tamasese, high chief objected to the medical tax, to the stopping of the presentation of fine mats to the Government, and to the proposed dividing of land amongst Samoans without .the consent of the owners. He said he was a member of the Mau. - . To Sir Charles Skerrett: The object of the Mau was to secure self-govern-ment for the Samoans, independent of New Zealand, but under the British flag The Mau never worked, for the removal of the . present Administrator. Siaosi, formerly of Alipiata, a.nd.wno was banished anjl deprived of Ins title, complained that no preparation had been made by the Administration for the maintenance of his wife and children at home, or for himself away. Incidental to evidence regarding the presentation to the Governor-Genera bv Toelupe of Samoan emblems of authority, Judge McCormick informed the witness that apprehensions about Samoa were needless. New Zealand administered under a mandate, andwas strictly bound bv its terms. These remarks were prefaced by an interjection by Sir Charles Skerrett: “What doe? it matter? What hinges upon it? The idea is rank, absolute nonsense, and could only, have arisen in ultra-susnicious minds or ultra-ig-norant minds.” (Rec. October 2, 11.5 p.m.) Apla, October 1. Atielua Lauvai, formerly clerk to the interpreter of the Native Department, gave evidence through the interpreter. He complained that his orator’s title had been taken away, and no reason had been given him. He admitted convictions for abduction and perjury. He did not think Samoa should be administered by Samoans. A Legislative Council with three Native members should make the laws. Saletai complained that his title had been taken away and he had been banished in 192 S for reasons which he considered insufficient. Before his trial he had not been notified of the specific charges which would have to be met. The proposed new law for the subdivision of land would undermine the influence of heads of families and cause them to lose control over their families, and was likely to result in serious trouble in Samoa. The self-government of Samoa by Samoans, as desired by the Mau, was advocated by this witness, and also by the next witness, Tialavea Faitcle.