LABOUR PARTY'S ATTITUDE

Evening Post, Volume CV, Issue 58, 9 March 1928, Page 8

LABOUR PARTY'S ATTITUDE

(To the Editor.) Sir,—The supporters of Mr. H.E. Holland in his, campaign against New Zealand's adininistratiojn in Samoa are doing their best with a bad case. One. thing most notable is that neither Mr. Holland nor they, ever give any credit for the undoubted benefits conferred on the Samoans by such administration. In his pamphlet, -Mr. Holland makes use with evident approval of the thoughtless utterance of Sir Maui Pomare that every person in New Zealand was responsible for the carrying of the influenza epidemic, tb. Western Samoa; Mr. Holland, however", passes over the part.of. the same speech wherein Sir Maui recognises the Minmense benefits which the Samoans have received under the present Administration. •. ; Your correspondent "New. Zealand Born" is wrong in assuming that there have been "punishments- without trial." The acts of banishment and deportation are not really punishment but protection ,of the general body of Samoans. To remove those who constitute themselves a. danger in order to protect the general body is as we previously pointed out, a practice which has the endorsement of the British Government and of, at least, one section of the New Zealand Labour Party The practice was one which the Samoans carried out under their own customs. There is no coming down or going up to their level in question, as both they and we have independently adopted the same com-mon-sense practice. It is a foolish notion to think all acts of executive authority must follow tlie formality of a trial. When the Speaker in Parliament ] orders the removal of a member because he defied the ruling of the House, nobody thinks of naming his action one of tyranny because the member was not first tried by a Court, or Committee of the House. In just the same way is there punishment without trial in the AdminisI tration of Samoan affairs. It is not indeed punishment in objective, but protec- ! tion. As a matter of fact, this practice lof deportations has the sanction of the Mandates Commission of the League of Nations. It approved of the following order:— . . If any person resident or staying in the South Sea Islands has disturbed the I public peace or morals, or is found to be ! likely to do so, the Chief of the Competent Branch Bureau, after obtaining the sanfction of the Director of the South Seas Bureau, may prohibit him from living or staying in the Islands for a period exceeding one year, but not exceeding three years. A person who is so prohibited shall leave the South Sea Islands by the earliest available vessel. When unavoidable circumstances exist, making it proper to do so, the Chief of ,the Competent Branch Bureau may extend to him the grace of postponement for a certain specified time. Your correspondent says: "Copra, boose and Nelson and Smyth have nothing to do with this fundamental question," meaning the right of trial. According to the evidence they certainly had to do with the trouble in Samoa. The Royal Commission says: "Certainly no satisfactory evidence was adduced before us from which we could infer the existence of any unrest or dissatisfaction amongst the natives before this date" (September, 1926, when Mr. Nelson returned to Samoa). : ' Still, Mr. Holland, in the very operiing of his pamphlet, says: "During the past four or five years it is doubtful whether at any period of its stormy history under white domination, its people have been so wholly dissatisfied with the conditions imposed upon them," etc. Shall we take the word of the Commission or that of Mr. Holland, a sorely biased politician. Shortly'put, Mr. Holland holds that the Samoans should be left to govern themselves, and docs not say how they are to be^protected from the ravages of tropical disease or the exploitation of self-inter-ested traders.—We are, etc., ■' N.Z. WELFABE LEAGUE!' (To the Editor.) Sir,—l had hoped that I would be spared the trouble of entering my protest against the unseemly attitude adopted by the Leader of the Opposition in connection with the Samoan trouble, but Mr. Holland is bo persistent in advocating the claims of Hs wealthy copra friends that I feel bound as a supporter of the Labour Party to disclaim any sympathy whatever in the action he is taking. I have consistently supported Labour ever since it became possible to so record a vote, but when Mr. Holland says that if returned to power the Labour1 Party will see that Mr. Nelson and the other deportees are returned to Samoa, I must tell him that I shall unhesitatingly vote against Labour, and I feel sure that the majority of the intelligent section of the Labour Party are of the same opinion as myself on this question. He is so flagrantly in the wrong that he cannot possibly hope to weaken the Coates Government by his wild campaign, and unless the party funds are to benefit in some way, his action is to me not understandable. His attempt at facing both ways is simply ludicrous.— I am, etc,