SAMOAN COMMISSION

Hawera Star, Volume XLVII, 13 December 1927, Page 5

SAMOAN COMMISSION

A SPIRITED REPLY.

TO AUSTRALIAN CRITICISM.

COMPLAINTS INQUIRED INTO. (l!Y TELEGRAPH—PRESS ASSOCIATION.) WELLINGTON, Dec. 12. The Prime Minister (Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates), commenting on Sir Joseph Carruthers’s cabled criticism of the Samoan Commission’s report-, says: “If the report to the Samoan Commission is ‘just as Sir Joseph Carruthers expected,’ then either Sir Joseph must be very ignorant of the terms of the report or his previous expressions of his views have been very widely misunderstood. In view of the amount of knowledge of the actual points at issue that has previously been disclosed by Sir Joseph in his somewhat uncalled for and very public remarks while the matter was still sub judice, I am prepared to believe the* former explanation is no doubt the correct one. “Sir Joseph’s statement that ‘the terms of' reference were so narrow that no other report could have been anticinated,’ shows an entire want of knowledge- of the actual circumstances. The actual fact is that the commission was specifically instructed to inquire into every one of the complaints that had been made either to the Minister of External Affairs in Samoa or in the petition presented to Parliament, and, in addition, was required to inquire as to whether in any other direction the Administration could have been held to have exceeded its duty or to have failed to exercise its respective functions honestly and justly, and as to whether the power of banishment of Samoans could properly be repealed. “Sir Joseph’s comment that the Hon. O. F. Nelson and ‘other leading members of the local community were naturally unable to make their case good within the narrow terms of ,re-fei-ence that regulated the inquiry’ is so absurd in the face of the undoubted position as to he unworthy of detailed criticism. The plain facts of the case, which are well known in New Zealand, in Samoa, and bv all who are capable of intelligently following the matter, are that the petitioners and complainants were afforded by means of the commission every possible opportunity of substantiating every one of the complaints they made, and it is again a fact that the commission did investigate every one of these complaints and did make a finding on each and- all of them entirely vindicating the Administration.

“Sir Joseph’s inference that ‘the main issues on' which the eommisson makes its findings were, firstly, whether General Richardson had done good work in Samoa and, secondly, whether the banishment of Samoans was in conformity wtih the laws and ordinances made by the New Zealand Parliament’ is again absurdly wide of the mark. The commission not only investigated all the matters already mentioned,. hut on the subject- of banishment inquired, as it was hound to do in accordance with the terms of reference, into all the details of the complaints made and also as to whether it would be prudent and safe to wholly repeal and abrogate this power to require a Samoan to remove for a definite period from one place on the islands to another. On this head it would in ordinary circumstances be unnecessary to make any further reference to the findings of the commission, but, in view of the extraordinary attitude taken up by Sir Joseph Carruthers, I feel I must, in justice to the Administrator and, indeed, to the New Zealand Government, repeat the following -passages -from the commission’s report: ‘We are satisfied,’ say the commissioners, ‘that these (banishment) orders were made upon a proper procedure, and that no objection can lie made to them. We are wholly unable to see that, in the circumstances which obtained-, the Administrator was not- justified in exercising such powers as he possessed to discourage the organisation of the Mau and to compel the dispersal of natives to their respective homes. It is clear to us that the Administrator was right in his opinion that the organisation of the Mau, as understood and used by the natives, could not exist alongside of and concurrently with. th« Administration of the country under the mandate; one or other must give way. We are of opinion that it is not prudent or safe to wholly repeal the power which we are considering and, further, that- no demand exists for such repeal.’ “With Sir Joseph’s remark that ‘it takes some courage for a man in my position to condemn the actions- of the Government of a -sister Dominion,’ I am prepared to agree,” continued- 'Mr. Coates'. “I think it will he commonly agreed by all who are in a position to judge that- it was not only ‘some courage.’ but unparalleled want of courtesy, combined with an equal want of knowledge of the circumstances or the deliberate refusal to consider the facts. I am not disposed to enter into a- public controversy with Sir Joseph Carruthers or any other person who is inclined to express an opinion on a matter with which lie has no concern. I am quite prepared to leave the actions of the Government and the findings of the commission to the judgment of all impartial observers, who will, of course, understand that the-methods of Administration appropriate to enlightened communities cannot be applied in. their entirety and with equal success to -a backward people whose need of guidance and control is indeed recognised by their status under the mandate.”