THE SAMOAN MANDATE

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20964, 1 March 1930, Page 24

THE SAMOAN MANDATE

MINUTES OF THE PERMANENT COMMISSION. RETORT TO THE COUNCIL. (From Our Own Correspondent.) LONDON, January 10. The printed minutes of the sixteenth session of the Permanent Mandates Commission are now available. This session, it. will lie remembered, was held during last November, and Sir James Parr acted as the accredited representative of the mandatory Power when the examination of the repoit on Western •Samoa was in progress. The examination was continued over several sessions and the account of the proceedings covers some 20 printed pages of foolscap size. The members of the commission were very keen in their questioning, and no one who had not studied his subject in all its ramifications could have given satisfactory replies. In. his statement Sir James Parr said that, acting under advice, he thought the Mau had come to the conclusion that if it persisted long enough in its non-co-operative attitude it must ultimately attain its end.

M. Rappanl asked to whose advice Sir James referred.

“I suggest,” said Sir James, "that the old influence is still at" work. Mr Nelson is now living in Auckland, the largest city of New Zealand and nearest to Samoa, and is still active. Recently a Samoan Defence League was formed in Auckland, the principal figure in it being a rather well-known lawyer who is the lawyer for the Mau and for Mr Nelson, as well as for the Samoan Defence League. This Defence League is numerically small, and‘l am advised that its influence in New Zealand is somewhat negligible, but there can be no doubt that it is in close touch with the Mau chiefs, and there can be little question that Mr Nelson is still active.”

M. Eappard asked whether the Samoan issue had played any great part in the political campaign. . Sir James Parr replied; “ None or very little. It did not seriously affect the issue. It is true that the Labour leader has said that it did play a part, but neither of the other parties would, I think, agree with that for a moment.

Such was the position on the assumption of office by the present Government, which was obliged to consider very seriously the course it should take. On the one hand it was not without sympathy for the Samoans who had attached themselves to the Mau, The new Government believed that the Mau was convinced of the justice of its cause, though, except for the .deportation of three Europeans Nelson, Gurr, and Smyth—the new Government had found it impossible to discover any grievances that might require redress; indeed, the very triviality of those grievances was one of the main difficulties in dealing with them.” Sir James pointed out that there had been a most remarkable increase in the trade of ISamoa during the past 12 months. \ p'HE POLL TAX.

Later M. Eappard said, that it seemed that disorders actually occurred, and that there was not merely a lack of goodwill on the part of the Mau. This sentence also seemed to imply that the Administration had. resigned itself to the present state of affairs, and that it regarded such incidents as Ae cutting of telephone circuits as matters of course. James Parr said that he was quite ready to admit that the mandatory power had been unable to collect the poll-tax. It should be remembered, however, that tiie Administration had to deal with some 40,000 natives. Even if it were to obtain in the courts a judgment for arrears of tax against the natives, it would still remain impotent in the matter. Distraining on the property of the natives was impossible, since all their property was communal. Also, imprisonment _ was no deterrent for Samoans. Imprisonment was no disgrace to them, and they regarded the prisons as places where they would he fed and sheltered, ibe Administration had therefore come to the conclusion that its prestige might best be preserved by repealing the tax lather than by maintaining it without any .power to collect it. Moreover, the icqiured revenue was being collected bv an export duty on copra. 7 . ' SAMOA FOR THE SAMOANS.

M. Palacios referred to a statement in the Samoan Guardian that the movement which steadijy became more gen Sal causS® VICaI and even dualist

Sir James Parr said that the Government declined to assume responsibility for opmions expressed by iSdual members of the New Zealand Parliament He wished to point out that the term Samoa for the Samoans,” had no fixed moaning. Some of the partisans of £ policy regarded .it as implying gradua i„ P u C r °a ° f the Matives f <* selffoverm ™ t'? ereas °r T 5 re S arded it a s enenc” uLI.T f S rant of imlel'end.ltched ehm>i ■”

( A - OGATA’S STATEMENT. Count de penha Garcia observed that *«. ot m iT‘„t tll„ natues. He quoted an extract from the piess, dated September 7 ipon j . « ■ .teta !„ the House o,’liepl Sir Apirana Ngata, recognisiim the mistakes that had been made, was' re&s having said: “To my humble way of tliinkimr w w is needet. is a diplomatist, one of those gentlemen educated at Geneva, to arrive Zealand.” ° rmUla *° saTe the face of New Sir James Parr, continuing the quotation, remarked that Sir Apfrana N<Sta Ijacl said “to save the P fice Government of New Zealand and of t e Koa^ h t rn T and difficu<t ** * Samoa. Sir James knew that the Mandates Commission could not supply any such formula. It was not P the Commission.

of e ™P Jla sised that the role of the Mandates Commission was not to administer the territories under mandate. Sii James added that under present conditions it was no use to talk of us inforce. The Government could only rely on time and patience, with an insistence cin f dQr and the Punishment of enme. Such was the policy of the piesen; Government.

PATIENCE AND TOLERANCE. Sir James. Parr went on to read a statement giving the opinion of the Government in.regard to the use of armed force. A lengthy discussion took place m which an endeavour was made to show that no statement of any member of the commission at previous meetings could lie interpreted as meaning that the New Zealand Government should used armed force to preserve law and order. M. Orts, in making the explanation, said that the commission's recommendation might he considered so vague as to be of little help to the mandatory power. A firm and liberal policy would be a polici which laid down the principle that nobody could break the law without paying the penalties the law provided, and it would be a policy which would not allow the operation* of the public servkcs to he suspended and the Administration to be reduced to helplessness at the will of individuals. The taxpayers’ objection to paying taxes was not peculiar to Samoa. There were other territories where the natives, having no private property, had no goods on which a distress could be levied, vet in those territories the natives ’paid their taxes without being compelled to do so hv force of arms.

Sir James Parr said that the New-

Zealand Government intended to pursue a policy of patience and tolerance —combined will" firmness in upholding the law—believing that, ultimately, that policy would prevail. M. Orts said that it was not the duty o( the commission to suggest any remedy, hut Sir James was entitled to ask the commission to express au opinion, at any rate, on the question whether this police of toleration was wise, lie regretted that the •commission declined to express an opinion on that point. Sir James Parr said that “ a firm and liberal policy” was exactly the policy which the New Zealand Government was endeavouring to pursue. He would not quibble about words; but New Zealand’s policy was “to be firm and liberal,” exercising at the same time due patience with a misguided people. Sir James adhered to his opinion that, the only alternative was military force which New Zealand would never adopt. DISCREPANCIES IX REPORTS. Orts said that the Mandates Commission had before it .the repoit of the three officials which had been sent to it by the mandatory power. The statements made in that report did nut accord very well with the generally optimistic tone of the animal report. * Above all, its conclusions differed very much from those of the Royal Commission on the basis of which the Mandates Commission had drawn up its observations to the Council of the League of Nations on the work of its thirteenth session. He would be glad if the accredited representative would explain the disparities _ and contradictions which appeared in the three documents in question; the report of the Royal Commission, the report of the three investigating officials, and the annual report of the mandatory power for 1928-29.

Sir James Parr said that he understood that the Mandates Commission was dealing with the administrative side of Samoan affairs, and the conflict between the report of the three civil service officials and the report of the Royal Commission. He would preface his short _ explanation by saying that the three Civil Sendee officials who had gone to Samoa a year previously, had been sent by the former Governt, because that Government was becoming disturbed by the increase in expenditure. The Mandates Commission had before it the report of those officials, but not the full report, because passages had been cut out where certain officials had been referred to by name. Those were the only omissions. Sir James Parr agreed that the report was a. sweeping condemnation of the Administration and of its principal officials, especially after General Richardson s declaration in the previous year that he was thoroughly satisfied with their efficiency. It wits a little surprising to find that none of these officials had escaped the lash; but all Sir James Parr could say was that it was his duty to present the policy of the present Government. Apparently the Administrator also considered that the report of the three officials of the civil service was well founded.

M. Rappard pointed out that, in spite of what Sir James Parr had said, certain of the staff were congratulated in the annual report of the Administrator. Sir Janies Parr said ho was not sure of that. It was only usual to make some use of the “ language of complimentj” especially in an annual report. He then turned to the point raised by M. Orta and M. Rappard as regards the conflict between the report of the three officials and the report of the Royal Commission. He pointed out that it was not the duty of the three officials to review the political situation. Thev had been sent to enquire into the machinery of administration. The Royal Commission did not deal with these matters.

As for the report of the three officials, the present Government had received It, considered it, and now proposed to adopt it.

Recalling M. Rappard’s remark that the .Administrator had 'congratulated certain members of his staff, ho pointed out that the sentence quoted read as follows:

The Administrator desires to record his appreciation of the loyal support received by him from the Secretary to the Administration, the Secretary for Native Affairs, and the staff of all departments.” Lord Lugard asked: By whom were the men whoso conduct was now condemned appointed? How was it that the budget had been examined without discovering the state of things which was now described? One of the three Commissioners was Assistant Secretary to the Treasury. Did not he see the Samoan budget? Sir James Parr replied that, concerning audit, the report disclosed that an official had been sent for one month in each year; this, however, had been found inadequate, and it had been recommended that there should be a permanent official for an internal audit. He pointed out that probably the Department of External Affairs in New Zealand would deal with such matters.

Mile. Eannevig referred to the heavy sentence passed on Mr Nelson l two years ago, and asked if the general opinion of him in New Zealand had changed as a result of the special report which had been published.

Sir James Parr thought that public opinion had not changed in his favour. The new Government had the same attitude towards Mr Nelson as the old, and attributed its inability to get into touch with the natives to Mr Nchon's interference. REPORT TO THE COUNCIL. In the course of their report to the Council of the League, the Permanent Mandates Commission say:— The report for 1925-29, like previous annual reports, though admitting the unsettled conditions of the country, is written in a general spirit of optimism. The special report of enquiry, on the other hand, is extremely critical of the whole administration of the territory and of its finances. While greatly appreciating the frankness shown by the publication of this special report of enquiry, the Permanent Mandates Commission deeply regrets the state of affairs which it reveals—a state of affairs which is described by the three commissioners in very severe terms.

The Permanent Mandates Commission also noted, on various points, a discrepancy between the report of the Royal Commission appointed in 1027, and that of the three special commissioners. The conclusions at which the Permanent Mandates Commission arrived last year were thus based upon incomplete information.

The Pei manent Mandates Commission is of opinion that there is no reason to modify the view expressed by it during its thirteenth session, viz,, that there was no evidence of policy or action contrary to the mandate on the part of the Mandatory Power. On the other hand, the Isew Zealand Government appears to accept the new report of enquiry as presenting an accurate picture of the state of affairs jii Samoa, and therefore to admit that SOITKI of the charges of inefficiency which had been made arc at least partially justif:ed. The good intentions of the Administration and its efforts in matters of public health, education, and the economic development of the territory arc not questioned, but if is now clear that the methods of recruiting officials have not been satisfactory from the beginning. Moreover, the financial control exercised in the first instance by the Administrator himself and, in the •second instance, by the New Zealand Government, has been deficient. The Permanent Mandates Commission is glad to note that the Mandatory Power has immediately taken measure's to remedy the defects which have thus been disclosed. The Commission trusts that the policy of economy and retrench-

iiient now proposed will be exercised to such mi extent us to affect the currying out by the Mandatory Power of its principal obligation under the mandate, viz., the promotion of the well-being of the inhabitants of the territory. It has appreciated the financial support which the New Zealand Government has, up to tile present, been giving Western Samoa, and hopes that it will he continued in the future, so that it will not be necessary to increase the taxation or-the public debt charge of the territory, for the latter already seems to be heavy, in comparison to the resources of the country. As for the general political situation in Samoa, there has been, according to the informal ion given in the annual report for 1028-29, and the explanations furnished by the accredited representatives, no serious broach of public order during the last year. However, the passive resistance of the Man organisation, it. which two-thirds of the native population are enrolled, is continuing, and important branches of the Administration are considerably liampered in their activities. The revenue from native faxes for the year ending March 31, 1929, lias produced only one-third of the estimated amount. On the other hand, it would seem that the economic situation in the territory is good and the trade figures for the calendar year 1928 show a considerable increase.

In view of the present unsettled conditions and of the administrative reorganisation which is now taking place, involving important changes in the MgUor stuff, the Commission thought that no useful purpose would be served by making, during the present session, observations on the details of administration.

The Commission expresses the earnest hope that the annual reports of the Mandatory Power will, in future, be such as to allow it to form a true opinion of fhe whole administration, and so to avoid the painful surprise which it experienced this year in considering the report of the administrative experts.