Greymouth Evening Star. AND BRUNNERTON ADVOCATE. MONDAY, SEPT. 12th., 1927. SAMOAN ENQUIRY

Greymouth Evening Star, 12 September 1927, Page 6

Greymouth Evening Star. AND BRUNNERTON ADVOCATE. MONDAY, SEPT. 12th., 1927. SAMOAN ENQUIRY

Whatever mistakes the Government ma’de earlier, regarding complaints about the Samoan administration, it did the right thing in appointing two Judges to act as a Commission of Enquiry, and nothing more can be done until the report on the investigations is submitted. After having urged such enquiry, Mr. Nelson and other petitioners, now decline to assist the Commission, and refuse to give any evidence, on the ground that there is insufficient, time for them to collect their evidence, that the order of reference is insufficiently wide, and that no guarantee is given that the Government will not interfere with the petitioners and their witnesses. This last objection is an insult to the whole Dominion, and Mr. Coates put it mildly when he termed such a condition as “a deliberate affront.”

The present attitude of Mr. NeL son and his party will forfeit for their cause much of the public sympathy that was forthcoming ■when they first made their, protests against what they termed injustice. The reasons set forth for notv refraining to present their case are

quite inadequate. If their griev anees were so serious and so longstanding as they claimed, they should have no difficulty in tendering to the Commission enough evidence to warrant the enquiry, particularly as the Judges are going to Samoa for the purpose. If Mr. Nelson and his colleagues want time to search for “evidence” and for those with grievances, most people in this country will think that there cannot be much wrong with the administration. Even Mr. Nelson seems to see the absurdity of his present attitude, as he admitted that he personally would have gone on with the proceedings, but his legal counsel had advised him not to. Did the lawyer realise the weakness of his client’s case?

Were the Samoan dispute merely a quarrel between Mr. Nelson and the Administrator, or the petitioners and the New Zealand Government, the issue could be left to the principals, without the general public being much concerned. However, Samoa as a Mandated country, is under the protection of the League of Nations, and the charges of ill-treatment and injustice have been published world-wide. The Press in Britain, United States and on the Continent have had a number of editorial and other comments on the matter, some being eager to condemn New Zealand’s administration, and urging a change in the Mandatory. Others, remembering New Zealand’s fine work in Samoa, have urged patience before arriving at the verdict, but all agree that something must be wrong when such serious charges were made. Perhaps it Y’as this outside opinion, rather than Dominion criticism of which there has been plenty, that caused Mr. Coates to alter his previous decision, and to appoint the Royal Commission. At any rate it is clear that it is essential for New Zealand’s good name to have the matter as fully investigated as possible.

Those in New Zealand, like Mr. Holland, Leader of.the Opposition, who espoused the cause of Mr. Nelson and his party, from the onset, should now be equally eloquent in expressing their opinions about the refusal to give evidence to the Commission. They cannot agree with this policy and it is up to them to tell Mr. Nelson so quite plainly. The investigation may be a farce if onesided, but the honesty of the Judges appointed as a Royal Commission cannot, be questioned. If one. side will not help the enquiry, the Commission mftst do the best it can with what evidence is available. Unfortunately, the silence of Mr. Nelson and his supporters will be maliciously interpreted by Continental critics of New Zealand, eager perhaps to get Samoa from British supervision, as further “proof” of the Dominion’s harsh administration.