REPORT ON SAMOA.

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLVIII, Issue 196, 18 July 1928, Page 4

REPORT ON SAMOA.

DEBATE IN PARLIAMENT.

CRITICISM AND REPLY.

Per Press Association. WELLINGTON, July 17. The report of the Samoan Royal Commission was tabled in the House of Representatives this afternoon by Hon. W. Nosworthy, who reminded the House that last year the Leader of the Opposition had declared in the House that lie would stand by tlio Royal Commission’s report insofar as it referred to the evidence put before the commission. The Leader of the Opposition had gone up and down the country criticising the Government very severely.

Mr Holland interjected: Plenty more to come.

Mr Nosworthy said that the Government had plenty of material with which to defend itself. The Labour Opposition had made political capital out of the Samoan question. Statements issued by the Leader of the Opposition had been fully answered. The report of the commission upheld the Administration at every point. Messrs Smytlie and Gurr had confessed themselves reckless and mischief-making men. It was unfortunate that inside and out-

side the House Samoan affairs should have been misrepresented as they were and cabled away to other countries. Not one of tlio allegations made had been sustained hv facts. It was a sad episode in the history of the Dominion. The Privy Council had shut out Hon.

O. F. Nelson’s appeal after hearing his counsel, and Mr . Nosworthy held that the Privy Council was more competent to deal with the question of deportations and rights of people under the British flag than the Leader of the Opposition. Mr Nosworthy knew that the Leader of the Opposition would attempt to erect a smoke screen, but facts were stubborn things and the facts were in favour of the mandatory power.

REPLY TO MINISTER. Mr Holland, Leader of the Opposition, commenced to reply by congratulating the Minister on his egotism in suggesting that because file Opposition had attacked the Reform Government it had attacked the British Empire or the British Government. The speaker then went on to refer to the proceedings at the celebration of the King’s birthday in Samoa, which he declared was a boycott of those who did not share the political views of the Government, and when those who were boycotted held their own ceremony they were accused of disloyalty. He mentioned that Government officials were accused of manufacturing liquor all over Samoa. Banishment was carried out on evidence so narrowed down that accused persons could not put forward a defence. He then proceeded to criticise the Royal Commission for not finding whether or not traders were accumulating undue profits on the purchase of copra from .the natives. Ho wanted a full statement regarding the reparations estates. The Minister owed it to the House that such a statement should be made every year. The House should know whether or not there was a loss, and ho wondered whether that statement had not been laid before the House' because the late Administrator had dipped into funds whenever money was required for the administration of Samoa. ADMINISTRATOR JUSTIFIED, j Mr E. P. Lee (Oamaru) said that it was not the duty of the Royal Commission to decide whether there should or should not be prohibition of liquor in Samoa. That was a matter of policy and did not come within the scope of their inquiry. But the commission could have inquired into the charges which the Leader of the Opposition had referred to against officials had those charges been brought before it. Why then had not Mr Nelson brought these charges before the Commission and had them investigated. The report of the commission made it clear that anything that was done by the Administrator in the way of buying copra was done out of the reparation estates funds and did not come out of the Samoan funds at all. Therefore, if there was loss on the preliminary shipment the Samoans had no grievance because the money lost was New Zealand not Samoan, and any statement to the contrary was made with a view to misleading the Samoans. As to extravagance of the Administration, the commission found that the proofs of extravagance brought forward were so inaccurate and unreliable that it was difficult to see how they could have been made. The speaker quoted at length from the evidence given before the Royal Commission and the report of that commission to show that reckless and misleading statements had been made against the Administration, but no attempt made to justify them before the actual commission, which showed that there was no foundation to them in fact. Sir John Imke said that he could not conceive anyone opposing the administration of New Zealand in Samoa. The League of Nations had considered New Zealand the best country to take charge of Samoa and looking at the treatment of the Maoris he thought that their trust was justified. The Leader of the Opposition had opposed that policy from the beginning. But every one should unite to help the Government to carry out what was a very difficult task. Without desiring to criticise past Administrators he felt bound to speak now in favour of Sir George Richardson, who was a humane man and who would not be guilty of a high-handed proceeding unless he was amply justified in doing so, and that if he took strong measures in the crisis he must have been warranted in doing so. The Opposition should have joined hands with the Government in seeing that the natives got a fair deal 1 for the copra they grew and what the late Administrator did in that connection was worthy of every commendation. IMPORTANCE OF SAMOA. If New Zealand had not accepted the mandate over Samoa that mandate would have gone to America. But itwas too valuable to use to make that desirable. Samoa was of vital importance to us and wo could not afford to let it go. We therefore should unit© to make its administration run smoothly. He had nothing to say t against the present Administrator, but thought, the Government should have ! availed themselves of the opportunity to apoint an Administrator from the civil population. That course would have allayed much of the present opposition. When the House met at 7.30 the debate on the Sn,BMWii report was con-

Another long debate on Samoa took place in the House of Representatives yesterday w hen the report of the Royal Commission, was tabled.

tinued by Mr Howard, who said that Samoan affairs had got into a bad tangle, which became worse the more : we tried to__ unravel them. Neither copra nor prohibition was the root i cause of the trouble. Ho then proceeded to trace tho history of the Samoan Group and its partition by tlio great Powers which resulted in ‘ Germany obtaining possession of the portion now mandate to New Zealand. As part of their administration the Germans made an ordinanco which took away from Samoans the rights and liberties for which they fought. That

ordinance was subsequently adopted by Colonel Tate and endorsed by the

New Zealand Parliament in the Samoa Act. In 1920 tho Samoans began to express a desire to come under the Colonial Office, because they were more or less dissatisfied with New Zealand’s rule, but when Sir George Richardson was sent to Samoa as Administrator, everyone folt that tho man had been found who would clear up the mess into which Samoan affairs had drifted. Three white men were at the same time elected to the Legislative Council, who became the Opposition in Parliament, and they sought to have the objectionable ordinance modified. Subsequent events generating discom tent were traced until the Hon. W. Nosworthy “went down to Samoa and

throw a tin of petrol on th,e smouldering fire.” What the Samoans wanted was a measure of self-Government, a right to manage their own affairs in much the same way as the Tongans have, and surely, no member of the House would say they were not entitled to have that right. They fought for it, they won it, and by every right known to man they should have it. He did not blame Sir George Richardson so much, because he inherited a great deal of the trouble, but there would be no peace in Samoa until the objectionable ordinance was repealed and its stain upon our Statute Book completely wiped out. I

MR HOLLAND’S RESPONSIBILITY The Prime Minister, commenting on the speech of Mr Holland, said that the Leader of the Opposition had a heavy responsibility because much of what he said was taken seriously, not only in Samoa, but other parts of the world. He wished to say that his responsibility was such that if bloodshed took place in Samoa the blame for that must to some extent rest upon him. Irresponsible statements were very dangerous for they were often believed by people who might bo seriousl' 1 misled to advocate self-govcnn-ment in Samoa. This was to ask for an impossibility. Self-government had given its lead to civil war among the natives with all its disastrous results. So far the Leader of the Opposition liad made no move toward peace and if he (Mr Holland) wanted the verdict of tho country he (Mil Coates) would ho very pleased to see tlio election fought on the question of New Zealand’s administration of Samoa. Mr Holland had agreed to abide liy the decision 'of the Royal Commission. That commission was composed of two gentlemen who were not only highly competent, but were above suspicion in every other respect. Mi- Holland had found fault with the decisions of the commission, and said they were negative. The speaker proceeding to quote from tho commission's report in which .definite statements were made with regard to prohibition, copra, official extravagance, banishments, the Mau. appointment of faipules, and medical administration.

Continuing, Mr Coates said that Mr Howard was in the habit of quoting tho report when it suited him, but when it did not suit him he would slide off on to something else. _ “I think the only thing I can do is to get out a pamphlet in opposition to him.” Mr Holland: “Oh, that mine enemy would write a hook.” Mr Coates: “I am not an enemy of the honourable gentleman. As a matter of fact, I am very well disposed to him, because he undoubtedly is the finest asset I have in this country. The Leader of the Nationalist Party can make what he likes <of that.”

ADMINISTRATOR’S FINE RECORD

Concluding, Mr Coates said that no man had better knowledge of Samoan jjffairs than Sir George Richardson. He left office because his time was up and he wished to retire. But ho left a fine record behind him, for the administration of Samoa, was quoted all over the world among the mandated territories. Great strides had been made, but political intrigue had been promoted by men whose interests were not with the Samoans.

Mr J. A. Lee (Auckland East) said that lie did not care what any judge reported. Ho was not going to agree to have the right of trial by jury taken away from any man. The Labour Party was determined to fight for this principle, and they did not care whether a judge recommended it and a Government supported it. Mr W. D. Lysnar (Gisborne) congratulated the Prime Minister upon changing the Minister in charge of External Affairs (Hon. W. Nosworthy) and the Administrator, because in his opinion much of the trouble had bfeen caused by those two gentlemen. He did not entirely agree with the Act of last year because it did not take a. sufficiently broad view of the situation in the islands. Now,, however, a change in the administration was made he was prepared to accept the position. Mr D. G. Sullivan (Avon) contended that the Leader of the Opposition had said that he would accept the decision of the Royal Commission if it was in harmony with the evidence. That was a perfectly reasonable qualification because any judge or judges appointed might easily be fallible and make mistakes. What New Zealand should have done when it accepted the mandate was to have borrowed a man from the Colonial Office with all its generations of experience behind him. Or wo might have sent Sir Maui Pomare or Sir Apirana Ngata, men accustomed to deal with the native race. Had that been done ho was confident the mistakes we' had made would not have occurred. 1 OTHER SPEAKERS. Mr J. Mason (Napier) ridiculed the Labour members’ demand for trial by jury in cases of banishment, a custom which had prevailed in Samoa from time immemorial. Mr F. N. Bartram (Grey Lynn) suggested .that .the Reform Party was

adopting the Samoan question as a possible battle cry for the general election. Ho urged that tho Samoans should have an opportunity for free development with protection from exploitation. Mr C. E. Macmillan (Tauranga) said that the weakness of the Labour criticism was that it was only general. It failed to show where the commission's report was not in harmony with the evidence. Hon. R. A. Wright, Minister of Education, declared that the commission’s report fully vindicated New Zealand’s administration. He considered that the Labour Party’s attitude was a direct incitement to the Samoans to make mischief. The only persons who tried to make political capital from Samoa were the Labourites which defended Mr Nelson who had been shown to be an exploiter of Samoan labour. Hon. W. Nosworthy, replying, quoted from the Royal Commission’s report to show that not one allegation of the Citizens’ Committee regarding Samoan finances had been supported by tho evidence. There was no excuse for misleading the natives. The Samoans were a childlike people who were dragged

into trouble likely to lead to bloodshed. New Zealand was in Samoa to govern in the Samoans’ interests. At 11.35 p.m. the motion, that the report lie on the table was put and agreed to on tho voices.