Grey River Argus TUESDAY, June 21, 1927. SAMOA.

Grey River Argus, 21 June 1927, Page 4

Grey River Argus TUESDAY, June 21, 1927. SAMOA.

If Mr Nosworthy docs nothing else with the cabled report he sent a few days ago from Suva relative to the situation in Samoa, he cer tainly has exploded the delusion hugged by many that the mandate rule of this country over the exGerman territory is popular and successful in the eyes of the Samoan population. The remarks we publish to-day in whieli the Leader of the Opposition, Mr H. E. Holland, replies to Mr Nosworthy reveal facts which demand the serious attention of New Zea-

Linders, and which we trust the Labour Party will take the earliest opportunity to set. forth in Parliament. , Those facts are briefly that German methods are being revived; the Administration is a little model of the system reared in Italy by Mussolini; the sentiments of the natives are ignored except in so far as they are subservient to the regime set up in the name of this country; Parliamentary representation is a farce, the elected representatives being accused of intrigue and menaced with exile, while the franchise is a travesty of democracy; and there is being set up the doctrine that no constitutional changes may be sought by the residents. When the Western Samoa Legislative Council met last March the Administrtaor merely delivered a “message,” so that the elected representatives could not reply, and had no option but. present, a statement, which the Samoan Guardian of May 26 gave publication, and which the. elected members (Messrs O. F. Nelson, A. Williams, and G. E. L. Westbrook) have asked the Administrator to forward to the New Zealand Government. Mr Nosworthy recalls how two of those members in 1910 signed a petition to the German Parliament identical in languaa'e and arguments .against the then administration witfi the arguments pow brought against the new administration. This proves the similarity of the two codes! Mr Nosworth'- talks of the Faipules (native leaders) favouring the present regime, but does not distinguish between the Faipules selected by that regime and the Faipules -whom it has (a la Mussolini) virtually segregated in their villages and forbidden to carry a protest to New Zealand. If Mr Nelson is returned at the head of the poll by the electors, and if he is threatened with banishment, surely the Administration is running counter to popular sentiment! Yet Mr Nosworthy shamelessly says he has a radio message from the “Premier” of Samoa as follows: — “ Immigration order amended to enable Administrator Samoa, as directed by the Governor, to order any person to leave Samoa, if the Administration is satisfied that the person is disaffected, disloyal, or likely to be a source of danger to the peace, order, and good government of the territory.” This can be aimed only at. the elected representatives of the people, who, in their io the Administrator aforementioned, say:—“We do not. hold with him as to the functions of the Council, as the Constitution of the Council, set out in the ‘Samoa Act J (Article 46) distinctly stales that the Adminislimtor. acting with the advice mid consent of the Legislative Council, may make laws (to be known as Ordinances), etc. Provision for the ‘ levying of taxes, rates, tplls, dues, etc.,’ is also given, so th? functions of the

Council arc not, as His Excellency states, confined to the ‘ consideration of legislation submitted to it by the Administrator, and on which lie wants advice. The whole of the policy now being followed by the elected members, and which the Administrator so

strongly condemns in his ‘ message,’ was clearly put to the electors before the last election on November 30th, 1926, when the elected members were re-elected bv a majority of two to one in a country where 30 per cent, of the franchise are Civil servants or Government officials.” Surely Mr Nosworthy studiously ignored the facts above cited in the reply of Messrs Nelson Williams, and Westbrook! They declare further:—“lt is the police of the elected members, and we think it the only rightful one, that native interests should receive our primary consideration. With this policy ever in mind, wc have from the beginning st’rohgly advocated direct native representation in the Legislative Council, and have brought to our assistance irrefutable and unanswerable arguments in favour of this as well as other matters affecting native interests. We have opposed to our very utmost all harsh measures against the natives, such as the unwarranted enforcement of the ‘ Samoan Offenders Ordinance,’ and the promulgation of another new law directed against the rights, privileges, and liberties of the natives (and Europeans), styled the ‘ Maintenance of Authority in Native Affairs Ordinance, 1927.’ ”

The reply continues—“lt is because we have reason to know that practically the whole of the Samoan natives, and this has most undoubtedly been confirmed by demonstration, oppose these measures, together with the medical levy, the power of the Administrator to banish natives from their native villages and remove their hereditary chiefly titles without trial, the usurpation of all the constitutional functions of the ‘ hereditary chiefs and rulers ’ by the Government appointees, and the official admission that the ‘ Native Council of Faipule ’ is a body of Government officials, thereby leaving the natives totally without representation, that we felt it encumbent on the elected members, in the interests of the inhabitants of the territory as a whole, and for the ‘ peace, order, and good government of the territory ’ to endeavour, with the cooperation of the people themselves, to remove these anomalies and right other outstanding wrongs as well as strive to obtain Government service, by direct representations to the New Zealand Government. These direct representations to the New Zealand Gov'ernhient have been decided only after all personal and official representations through the properly-constituted channels in Samoa have failed. Hereditary chiefs and orators of the highest rank have been arraigned before the Native Department and punished or cautioned for their utterances' in such meetings, even though they were made on the understanding that.llis Excellency relished free speech.” Finally. Ihe refusal of the New Zealand Minister of External Affairs to receive a Samoan deputation is cited, and the whole situation is revealed as one to which Parliament must give its best attention without delay. The League of Nations may not bo very influential, but it has to be reckoned with for all that.