THE SAMOAN ARBITRATION.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CVIII, Issue 13001, 17 December 1902, Page 7

THE SAMOAN ARBITRATION.

THE KING OF SWEDEN’S AWARD

EXTREME GERMAN VIEWS UPHELD (Per R.M.S. Sonoma., at Auckland.) SAN FRANCISCO,. Nor. 26.

A despatch from Washington of Nor. 16 says;—By previous arrangement between tiie principals the decision by King Oscar 11. in regard to the. claims of the United States, Germany and England regarding some militairy operations in Samoa was made public. The decision is long and abstruse, but previous reports regarding it bare nob indicated' the complete victory won by Germany. It appears that on every point the Arbitrator adopted the most extreme German view in opposition to the claims of Great Britain and the United States. The arbitrator recites that the United States ship Philadelphia and the British steamers Porpoise and Royalist, on March 15, 18S9, opened fire across the- town of Apia, Samoa, directing the same against the forces' of flic high chief Mataafa, and that the same vessels brought the newly appointed King of -Samoa, Malietoa, and his forces to Mulamm Point, and supplied them with arms and ammunition for the ensuing, struggle with Mataafa. In answer to the British and American claims that under the treaty of Berlin anyone of the signatory Powers was fully authorised to enforce the decision of the Chief Justice of Samoa declaring Malietoa King, the arbiter says : —“ We have found- nothing in the said General Adi or any subsequent agreement which authorises anyone of the signatory powers or a majority of them to take action to enforce the condition of the Act- or to make the decision of the Chief Justice binding on the Powers.” It -is held that the British and American military action “ hud the action of serious control \ver the Samoan Islands and the Government thereof,” which was prohibited by article 1 of the General Act. The -arbitrator insists that the Berlin conference aimed to establish the principle that- in dealings with Samoa the Powers -could proceed only bycommon accord and that as the consular representatives of the three Powers had by proclamation recognised the provisional Government of Mataafa the Powers themselves wore bound on the principle of international good faith to maintain the situation -until by common accord they decided to change it. The action of the British and American authorities “ tended to overthrow the provisional Government thereby established,” 'it is held, w-as contrary to the aforesaid obligation, and cannot be justified either on the plea of validity ab iuit-io of the- said provision of Government, nor its establishment under a species of “force majewre.” Touching the British and American complaint against the German Consul for refusal to sustain the decision of the Chief Justice, the arbitrator bolds “ It cannot- be considered to have -been the duty of the berman Consul to take part in the issuance of the said proclamation, and it has not been proved that with regard to the- said decision any steps were- taken by- him contrary to the -general Act, and therefore no responsibility attaches for the attitude taken by- him in this respect. The arbi-trator-meets the British and American contention that military action was necessary for the protection of lives and property, which It was their duty to safeguard, by the fiat statement, ‘Wo have found nothing in ths evidenco before ns to show that the general condition of affairs was such as to render military action necessary for the protection of lives and property,’ and then goes on to say r ‘ Mataafa, never intended to cross the bay at- that time, and make an attack on the consulates, and on account of the State of the tide, could not possibly have done so at that time.’ Continuing, the decision recites that Malietoa had been completely defeated before the arrival of the Philadelphia, but that the United States Admiral and the British authorities brought back his warriors, and armed and provisioned them, giving them ammunition, which, under treaty-, should only have been issued at the unanimous request of tho three consuls.” The decision concludes as follows: —“ That the military action in question, namely, the bringing back of the Malietoans and tho -distribution to them of arms and ammunition, the bombardment and military operations on shore, and the stoppage of street traffic, cannot be considered as having been warranted, and that, therefore, his Britannic Majesty’? Government and the United 'States Government are responsible under the Convention of Nov. 7, 1899, for the losses caused by the said military- action, while reserving for future decision the question as to the extent to which the two Governments, or each of them, may be considered responsible for such losses.”