Manawatu Evening Standard. THURSDAY, AUGUST 23, 1928. SAMOAN ADMINISTRATION VINDICATED.

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLVIII, Issue 227, 23 August 1928, Page 6

Manawatu Evening Standard. THURSDAY, AUGUST 23, 1928. SAMOAN ADMINISTRATION VINDICATED.

The Permanent Mandates Commission in its report upon Samoa and the questions raised in connection with the Administration has administered the knock-out blow to the prime mover in the agitation which has been proceeding in the mandated territory of Western Samoa since 1926, in its strong condemnation of “the action of Mr Nelson and those associated with him” who, in its opinion, “seem to have been inspired less by a desire for the public welfare than by personal ambition and interests. .By unworthy means,” the report says, “they have worked upon the minds of an impressionable people who, prior to their propaganda, showed no disquieting signs of discontent.” None of the charges of any importance made against the Administration has been sustained, and the Mandates Commission arrives at the conclusion that “every effort has been made by the local administration to improve the condition of life of the native population, notably in regard to public health and education as well as in regard to agricultural production aud commerce.” That opinion has not been arrived at without definite and searching inquiry into the charges made by Mr Nelson and his friends, Messrs Gurr and Smyth, who were deported from the mandated territory by the Administrator, that official’s action being confirmed by the New Zealand Government. The legality of the . deportations has been challenged by Mr H. E. Holland, the leader of the New Zealand Opposition. It is confinned by the finding of the Mandates Commission that “the mandatory power is alone responsible for maintaining law and order in accordance with the mandate.” The ex-Administrator, MajorGeneral Sir George Richardson, in the opinion of the Commission “acted with great patience . . . and showed a forbearance and confidence in people which may have been misunderstood and so, to some extent, undermined his authority.” That is-just what happened, the Mau agitators trading on that forbearance, and encouraging the native Samoans in acts of insubordination and defiance of the constituted authority that, with the very small police force at his disposal, the Administrator was powerless to counteract. The Royal Commission obtained conclusive evidence on this point, and its reports fully justi-

fied the deportations of the trouble makers. The trouble all arose out of the prohibition policy which is a cardinal feature in the administration of Western Samoa, and the Administrator’s action in introducing' his marketing scheme to ensure the natives receiving better prices for their copra. Both affected the trading community, and Mr Nelson in particular, for that gentleman’s firm has a network of trading stations or stores in the territory, and the price they paid for native copra was said to be considerably below that paid to the Tutuilla natives under the American Government. The natives felt that they were unduly exploited and had frequently asked the Administrator if he could not do something to help them. When he attempted that something he struck at the exploiters’ pockets.

A CAUSE OE TROUBLE.

During the present session of the New Zealand Parliament a Labour member declared, when speaking upon Samoa, that the copra question had nothing to do with the native discontent. That, of course, is not in accordance with the facts, although the intriguers, who were responsible for the agitation which resulted in the setting up of the Mau, managed to draw the proverbial red herring across the trail, thus causing the natives to lose sight altogether of their one real grievance, the price of copra, in concentrating upon the more or less imaginary grievances associated with the native punishments of banishment, and tne taking away of titles—the former merely meaning that, for misbehaviour, a native Samoan was ordered to leave his own village and accept banishment for a given period to some other place in the territory, while, in the latter, a chief might be deprived of his title, and of such authority as the rank carried with it. Simple and unsophisticated as are the average natives, they were easily led into passive resistance of the Administrator’s authority, the bolder spirits amongst them proceeding to acts of aggression, in the belief that Mr iNeison, who tacitly encouraged them in their open defiance ot the Administrator, would succeed in his promise to obtain self-government for them. It must be not a little disconcerting to our Labour Socialists, and to Mr Nelson and his friends to find at every stage of the inquiries made, first by the Minister of External Affairs (Hon. Mr Nosworthy); then by the Royal Commission; again m the appeal made by Mr Nelson to the Supreme Court of New Zealand and then to the Privy Council, relative to Samoan affairs, and now finally to the Permanent Mandates Commission, that, the authority of the Administrator, and of the New Zealand Government, has been fully vindicated. It may be some time yet before things settle down into their normal groove in Western Samoa, for the natives have been led to believe that they had the support of the Leader of the New Zealand Opposition in their defiance of the Administrator, and Mr Nelson had promised to return bringing them victory, so that it may be some time yet before they realise how they have been misled. It is matter for congratulation to all New Zealanders worthy of the name that New Zealand’s fair name and good fame have been re-established in the eyes of the nations and that her authority as the mandatory power over Western Samoa lias been thus fully vindicated against the agitators who challenged it.