CRITIC OF SAMOA

New Zealand Times, Volume XLIX, Issue 11190, 21 April 1922, Page 3

CRITIC OF SAMOA

RECENT CORRESPONDENCE

PRESS REPRESENTATIVE AND N.Z. HIGH COMMISSIONER. ALLEGED DISCONTENT. Mr Sandes, representative, of the Sydney “Daily Telegraph,’’ having been questioned from the New Zealand High Commissioner’s office concerning statements he had made about discontent in Samoa and a native petition as an outcome of the same, a correspondence ensued. The “Daily Telegraph” io publishing a summary of that correspondence for the justification of its representative. Of this an advance proof has been sent to us by the general manager. We print it here:

How blind cab be the official eye upon occasions, and ho-.v blind officialdom’s faith in its own defective organ, is revealed in recent eorres-' spondence between Mr John Sandes, the London representative of the Sydney “Daily Telegraph” (who accompanied the Prince of, Wales on his Australasian tour as special re-„ presentative of the Australian Press Association), and the High" Commissioner for New Zealand. The correspondence rofers to an article published in this paper on September —, 1920. "

Mr Sandes’s article was written after bis visit, with the Prince, to Samoa, and it appeared in several Australian and New Zealand papers. In it Mr Sandes stated that discontent with New Zealand’s administration and control of Samoa was rife throughout the European and native community, and that the latter had prepared a petition praying that the mandate should be transferred to Great BritainOn March 14th, 1921, Mr Sandes received a letter from the secretary to the New Zealand High Commissioner, Sir James Allen, in which the official stated:—

Inquiries made in Samoa have failed to elicit # any information that would Substantiate the statement that siicn a petition was prepared or that there was any intention to present one, nor has a document of this feature been received at the Colonial Office.

The High Commissioner would, therefore, very much appreciate it if you would kindly advise him on what grounds you made this statement. PROOF OF DISCONTENT.

To this Mr S'andes replied, on March 17th, 1921, that he was in possession of a great mass of correspondence givparticulars of discontent in the island and of the actions of the New Zealand Administration which were stated to have produced it. Mr S'aAdes, referring to the. natives’ petition, of which the. High Commissioner denied the existence, quoted the following extract from a letter he had received"from a leading member of the Samoan white community:—

‘Upon Colonel Tate’s arrival a petition was handed him by the natiyes, requesting that the Administrator, who was away on vacation, be not allowed to return to Samoa. They said that their hearts, werb turned away from Great Britain on account of their great calamity in whioh they lost fathers, mothers, Siglers, brothers, and other kindred. They prayed that those responsible (for the introduction of the epidemic) should take care of their orphans, and said that if they were to be under British rule they preferred to be governed b> England and not by New Zealand. The natives were persuaded to withdraw this petition, oh the promise that a commission .would be appointed to Inquire into the matter, and the responsible parties punished.”

“The same correspondent,” proceeds Mr SantJes. “has sent'me a copy of a petition which he states was sent by the white residents of Samoa (44 signatures) to H.M. Secretary of State for the Colonies on December 20th, 1915, during the period of the / military government by New Zealand. The petitioners prav ‘that Samoa may become a Crown Colony, administered by a Governor or Resident under the Colonial Office or. if this is not practicable, that some means be found for including Samoa in a Crown"Colonial l administration. ’

“My correspondent adds: ‘The only acknowledgment that the document had reached! its destination was a small paragraph from Colonel Logan, pub. lishtd in the “Samoa Times” some time in. 191<!.’ ”, THE ’PETITION DISCOVERED. Receipt of this letter was acknowledged by the secretary of the department, Mr Donne, but no further reply was sent until Mr Sandes wrote again on November 23rd, 1921, pointing out that he had received no reply. Mr Sandes also said, in this letter: — “The existence of the natives’ petition was discovered! by Mr E. P. Lee, New Zealand Minister for External Affairs, when he visited Samoa on a mission of inquiry last Julv. “Mr , Lee induced the chief to withdraw the petition temporarily, but it was afterwards presented to the King. His Majesty’s reply to the petition appears in “The Times” of November 10th, 1921. “It is now proved by facts that the High Commissioner’s information on the point in Question in March last was incorrect, and that my information was correct.” “In these circumstances,” concluded Mr Sandes, “I ask for a withdrawal of the imputations contained in vour letter of March 14th, 1921.” “MERELY STATED POSITION ” To this the secretary replied that the department’s letter was based on information supplied to Ifcho High Commissioner from av authoritative source and merely stated the position os it was known at the time. Mr Sandes wrote again pointing out that Hie department’s reply contained no expression of regret for having made a charge against him, which was now. proved to have been totally without foundation and adding:— “As similar statements injurious ito my character and reputation ns a” journalist aid equally without n shadow of justification were made publicly against me ... I am sending a copy of this correspondence to my directors in Sydney.” “SOME FOUNDATION.” | Mr Donne replied that Mr Sandes had apparently misunderstood the let-

ter which had been addressed to him in the first place, and that no imputation had been made or implied.

“It was, however, realised,” wroto the secretary, “'that an article from the pen of an accredited correspondent would not be penned without reason, and you were therefore asked if you would kindly advise the High Commissioner on what grounds you made your statement Which, in view of the receipt of a petition to His Majesty tho King, has been shown to have had some foundation. “The High Commissioner wishes you to clearly understand thait no imputation or charge whatever was Made against you By this department nor any declaration that your article was incapable of -substantiation.”

MR SANDES HAS LAST WORD. Mr Sandes replied under date January 31st, 1922: —

“I beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter of January 19tli. I am very glad to have the assurance of tho High Commissioner that in your letter qf March 14th, 1921, ‘no imputation was made or implied.’ I am also very glad to find that when you wrote ‘inquiries made in Samoa have failed to elicit any information that would substantiate the statement’ you did not mean that the statement could not be substantiated, but merely that it had not been substantiated by the Government’s inquiries. “As the High Commissioner is now good enough to say that ‘in view of the reoeipt- of a petition to His Majesty the King the statement (that ' such a petition was in preparation) is shown to have -had some foundation’ he admits that the inquiries of a visiting journalist who was in Apia 'for only half a day were more effective in eliciting the true position than the inquiries instituted in Samoa by the New Zealand Government in a matter in which it 6 own administration was deeply concerned. “That being the interpretation whioh as it now appears I should have placed on your letter of March 14th—although that letter reached me after the express denial by the Government of New Zealand in the New Zealand Parliament—l receive with satisfaction the High Commis* sioner’s assurance that he was merely asking me for information -which the Government of New Zealand had not been able to- obtain from its own officials in Samoa.”