THE HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR THE WESTERN PACIFIC.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 6501, 16 February 1882, Page 3

THE HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR THE WESTERN PACIFIC.

TO THE EDITOR OP THE NEW ZEALAND TIMES. Sir, —The working of the Western Pacific Order in Council of 13th August, 1877. and the supplement thereto of 14th August, 1878,; whereby a High Commissioner for the Western Pacific was appointed (i.e.. Sir Arthur Gordon), has led to such unfortunate results to tne commercial interests of the Australasian Colonies throughout the Pacific,, that I, as a man iutimntely connected with the commercial interests of New Zealand in the Pacific, feel it a duty I owe to my fellow-colonists to give in brief what I have gleaned from authorities not to be disputed how our New Zealand commercial interests have been interfered with and jeopardised. The extending of England’s commerce is the one aim of British and colonial Ministers ; on this point there is, I take it for granted, no dispute, and in order to push forward her commerce her sons have had to force their way as pioneers among savage and semi-savage races. Until the establishing of the High Commissioner’s office, we—l speak as an Englishman—pressed on commerce, paving the way for missionary enterprise ; extending England’s rule, by rough means perhaps, but rough work had to be done. No man’ would try to clear bush laud with a Rodgers’ razor and a French barber. Men’s work had to be done, and men were needed, to do it, and men stepped forward, holding their lives in their hands, fearlea- aud manful, iu their acts. They gained. Fiji for England, and were extending her sway and influence daily, but the goodies at home—“the gentlemen of England, who sit at home at ease,”: who know nothing of the South Seas —thought that their younger sons were too severe on the noble savage, hence Pacific Islanders Protection Act, 1372-75, and the Western Pacific Order in Council alluded to. Powers were given, under this Order in Council to an appointee of; the Crown which are against.all spirit of the' British Constitution, aud without the know.ledge or consent of England’s people, as repre-, sented by the House of Commons—powers of a, nature and character utterly abhorrent to Englishmen’s ideas, and these powers are sup-’ ported by England’s ships of war. These powers have been used absolutely, against England’s sons—not for their protec-; tion. They have been hounded and hunted, imprisoned and fined, for trying to defend, their lives and property, while the noble savage in the New Hebrides and Solomon Islands has; been allowed to slaughter and plunder Eng-; land’s pioneers, and have been allowed to go! unpunished. When I say unpunished, I meani that the exacting of a few pigs and burning! of a few villages are inadequate to pre vent murders, and only make a British ship of ; war a laughing stock. Witness the recent murders of Fiji Government labor agents and the crews of labor vessels, not to say anything; of the murder of the commander and crew of H.M.S. Sandfly. Sir Arthur Gordon, as High Commissioner,; laid down as his dictum (in bis letter to the i Intercolonial Conference which eat in Sydney), ‘ that no British subject who chose to live in: uncivilised countries, other than British officers, ; &c., could expect to be protected, and this being his idea, it is scarcely to be wondered at that the murder of British subjects in the South Seas has been left unavenged. Who, I would ask, have, built up British; colonial trade ? Not such men as Sir Arthur; Gordon and his backers in Exeter Hal), but: British pioneers (men who Sir Arthur! has been so ready to brand as adventurers).: But with all hia powers—and these are of the; most despotic kind—he has been unable to; show that the men he traduces are not as law- 1 abiding as the people - of the Australian! colonies., i

To prove this, I may state that, with all the; High Commissioner’s machinery of law,backed up by meu-of-vvar, he, or his deputies,! have only been able to obtain five convictions since the establishment of the High Gommis-! sioner’s Court, from 1878 to 1881, and most of, these convictions would not stand the test of a; British jury—no jury being allowed under the, High Commissioner’s Court. particular attention to New Zealand and its commercial interests in the Western Pacific.; New Zealand by position should command the’ trade of Tonga and Samoa,.and did command a fair proportion of that trade until the High Commissioner stepped in. On the appointment, of the first Deputy Commissioner ;to Samoa, there were five vessels trading from this; colony; now there is.but one. The first' action of the High Commissioner was to prohibit, by regulation, the employment of British-Colonial vessels in the labor trade of Samoa, thus causing serious loss to the owners of the New Zealand schooner Gael, who had entered into a contract for the labor season with Messrs Godeffroy and Son, and thus debarring colonial shipping from competing withl vessels under other- flags, - Furthermore, the High Commissioner has prohibited British traders- in Tonga and; Samoa 'from^’.selling firearms and ammunition under a heavy penalty, while he at the same time, when Governor -of Fiji, did, and the present Governor of Fiji now does; pay off the time-expired Polynesian laborers in Fiji with muskets, powder, and ball, in all probability with which to shoot down the Fiji Government labor agents and the crews of the labor vessels. Meantime, traders of other nations in Samoa and Tonga can sell arims and ammunition at their willy thus crippling British trade. It is notorious that since the introductions ef these prohibitions the bulk of the trade has passed out of the hauds of British traders. _. . .

The prestige of British subjects with the Natives of the Pacific has been rudely shaken by the 'High Commissioner, for the Natives cannot understand how it is that British sub: jecta are so restricted when the citizens, of other nations have the free right to supply them with all which they require. ■- Even the personal liberty of a British subject is not safe, for where the High Commissioner “ has reasonable grounds to believe,” or, as it is put in the Order in Council, “ when qi is shown by evidence, on oath to the satisfaction of the High Commissioner that any British subject is disaffected to Her Majesty’s Government, or has, oris about to commit, an offence against the Pacific Islanders’ Protection Aois, 1872 and 1875 (Kidnapping Acts), or is otherwise dangerous to - the peace and good order of the Western Pacific,, the High Commissioner may prohibit that person from living in

the Western Pacific for the space of two years, I or he may bo deported from thence to Fiji, j Thus, without jury or hearing, on the j pimple dictum of one man, his f-iilow-man can I be ruined, and there is no appeal. How will this be viewed by commercial men in New Zealand, .and how will it affect their commercial interest? Who would stake capital against a commercial rival in a contest for supremacy in the Sou r h Sea Island trade, his opponent being a favorite with the High Commissioner? Who would venture on a speculation in the Wands while known as a political opponent of the Governor of New Zealand, who is High Commissioner, and contest the question with a known supporter of the High Commissioner? Why, the thing is absurd. So long as the Governor of New Zealand holds the position and powers of High Commisflionei; under the Western Pacific Order in Council, so long will he use his influence as High Comm'saioner for political purposes, so long will he hold Pacific Island commerce of New-Zealand in his hands, and he will ure that power as be has already done. He has caused our trade with the Pouth Seas to be seriously effected, and men of other nations are reaping the advantage. Sir Arthur Gordon had an idea that he could annex Tonga and Samoa as appanages of Fiji—that Grown colony of a severe type, but Samoan and Tongan chiefs have been to Fiji, and they have distinctly asserted, “ death before slavery ! Deal with the Fijian as you plea.se, but voluntarily we will not come under British rule under Sir Arthur Gordon.” Not that this is a dissent in connection with a free Government ; not that this means dfi-like of our race. By no means. They can, when the upas tree of High Commissioner is removed, be brought into the most intimate connections with our colonies, and more especially with New Zealand.— lam, &0., Beachcomber. Wellington, 15th February, 1882.