GERMANS IN THE PACIFIC.

Pelorus Guardian and Miners' Advocate., Volume 30, Issue 20, 12 March 1918, Page 4

GERMANS IN THE PACIFIC.

HON. T M. WILFORD’S VIEWS. Wo take the following extracts from an article on the future of the German colonies in the Pacific, contributed by the Hon. T. M Wilford in the Wellington ‘ ‘ Pest ’’: It is impossible for us to discuss a Pacific thrown back into the old conditions. We wish to . say, and say emphatically, Never again! Does Great Britain understand what New Guinea and Samoa, let alone the other small groups of islands, mean to Australia and New Zealand, and to the Empire, and thus the world? I doubt her understanding of the position. We claim the right to make our voice heard..

We New Zealanders believe, in reference to the future occupancy of these islands by Germany, “that their room is better than their company." W. M. Hughes, in speaking of the Pacific and the Islands, says: “Germany has been brewing her _ devil's broth for the benefit of the civilisation in an ocean which sooner or later must become the balancing centre of the world’s trade and development.” This is quite true. German plans were laid, as Mr Hughes says, against Australia, and, I add, against New Zealand, as carefully as they were laid against Scrvia, France, or Belgium. I wonder whether British statesmen remember the speech of Herr Dcrnburg in the Reichstag when introducing a measure called “An Act of Colonial Policy." He said:—

“Australian competition in the Southern Seas is very keen, and this competition will have to be driven off the field, since it will seriously restrict the market for German goods, unless large and fast steamers are available to maintain communication with the German colonies. The Nord Deutscher Lloyd has succeeded in driving from the field very keen rivals for the trade between New Guinea and Australia — rivals who made it very difficult for Germans to place their wares, and who gave preference to English and Australian goods.' ' The Reichstag passed the measure, a subsidy was granted, and the Australian firm specially aimed at —Messrs Burns, Philp and Co.—were blackmailed with special tariffs. DRAGOONING THE NATIVES. Some reference has been made at Home as to the taking of a plebiscite of the residents, including natives of Samoa, and Now Guinea after the war, and before the final destination of these places is settled. Such a process of settlement of such a vital question to us is, to say the least of it, doubtful, especially if Germans are given the opportunities of Bernsdorf, Boy Ed, and Von Papon in America, Zimmerman in Mexico, and Luxburg in the Argentine. Our methods of diplomacy —God save the markl —are hardly up to the German methods, thank Heaven. Poultney Bigelow in 1906 visited New Guinea, and his revelations as to German methods there tend to make us wonder whether the allies should permit the Germans ever to rule over native races; while the stories of East Africa and the indictment of Cardinal Mercior on German rule in Belgium furnish reasons for considering Germany unfit to be trusted with any dominance or control of any native population. To contrast the rule of a man like Sir George Grey over the Maoris in Now Zealand, with that of Theodor Weber, the German Consul in the Eacific, is to prove the unfitness of Germany to bo trusted with the care of any human beings other than Germans, and even in that respect the world to-day recognises that Hohenzollcrn or Junker rule of the German people is intolerable, and cannot be permitted for the sake of the peace of the world. If this viewpoint is admitted, does it not furnish an eloquent argument against German, rule in the Pacific, for that rule has consisted in dragooning the native population and taking as much of their land as was required—on German terms. A “SCRAP OF PAPER." Let me now refer to the Pacific Islands “scrap of paper" —a treaty signed betweu Germany and Great Britain in 1886, when provision was made and “guaranteed" by these Powers for equal trading rights in the islands of the Pacific, “apportioned," says the Brunsden Fletcher, ‘ ‘ after the surprises of 1884, when the remainder of New Guinea, the Bismarck, the Solomons, the Marshalls, and the Carolines were settled under the two flags." How did Germany carry out her signed and pledged word? My answer to that query is—in the German way:—She began immediately to scheme to drive her partner from the territory which was to be equally controlled. It is the story of Bosina and Herzegovina of 1908 over again—it* is another example of the doctrine that “necessity knows no law," so forcibly fathered by Bernhardi, Naumann, Dclbruch, and the War Lords of Germany. The Marshall Islands were put under the German Jaluit Company, registered in Hamburg, which company administered the islands and collected rates and taxes.

Fletcher, in his admirable work 1 The New Pacific/ says “that when the Jaluit Company started to check Australian trade and eliminated competition, three firms shared the trade of the islands, one from Hamburg, which was taken over, another from San Francisco, and a third from Auckland, New Zealand." The San Francisco firm saw that it was time to quit, and sold to the Jaluit Company, the New Zealand Company sold to a Sydney company, which sold to the Jaluit Company, which then controlled the whole trade. Burns, Philp and Company, backed by the Commonwealth, made a brave fight for the trade, but the German Colonial Office, with heavy subsidies, won, as might be expected—and this, says Brunsdon Fletcher, was how it was won. “A tax of £SO per .voyage was payable by every vessel trading to the Marshall Islands when the treaty was entered into. This tax the Jaluit Company immediately raised to £225 per month in all cases where the owners of vessels trading to the Marshall Islands were not established on these islands."

As this tax did not stop Burns, j Philp and' Company, it was raised to ( £450 per month. , < I “Determined to obtain justice

through Great Britain," says Brunsdon Fletcher, “the firm still kept going, though with the export tax placed upon copra, the levies of the Jaluxt Company then reached £9OO per month. An appeal was made to London, which was, as usual, slow to grasp the situation.

Australia, through the _ Commonwealth, under Sir George Reid and Mr Dcakiu, threatened reprisals, and Germany at last consented to some appearance of fair play. Burns, Philp and Company demanded £IO,OOO compensation, and, after many years, viz., in 1907, £4OOO was paid. Stewart’s handbook of the Pacific Islands, quoted by Brunsdon Fletcher, states that in 1904 alone, while this game was •going on, the German company netted £40,000 from the Marshal. Islands trade.

MACHINE-GUN ON THE DOORSTEP

Is the British Government proposing to allow this state of things to occur again wo Now Zealanders want to know.

I have read carefully the utterances of Lloyd George since 1914, and I do not believe that—great man as he undoubtedly is, and I write as a sincere admirer of him —he realises the possibilities of the Empire of the Pacific free from German domination. In a recent utterance he made reference to an understanding with the colonial Premiers and Viscount Grey. The inclusion of the last mentioned name shows me that he has had no recent consultation with Australian and _ New Zealand statesmen, and this is vitally necessary to us. . ~ , If after the war Germany is allowed to occupy Samoa or New Guinea, Now Zealand and Australia will be in the position of a man occupying his house with an enemy at his doorstep with a machine-gun. As a submarine and wireless base either Now Guinea or Samoa would bo worth to Germany an army corps, while trade and economic development would be at her mercy.

THE LOST MATUNGA. STORY OF A BOTTLE. When the full story of the lost steamers of the Pacific comes to be written, some romance will be centered round a bottle picked up on the high seas (says the Melbourne Argus, in referring to the vessels sunk by the German raider Wolf). Just when relations and friends of those on the Matunga had reconciled themselves to the belief that there could be no hope, and even the naval authorities took the gloomiest view, a mysterious message came from tno deep. At first it was regarded as a hoax, but when dates and names came to be examined by it was realised that most important information had been miraculously made available. In the bottle, it is understood, was briefly sot out the story that the Matunga 's company had been made prisoners of war, and that survivors from other destroyed steamers were with them. Beyond the most meagre facts, all was mystery. It puzzled navigators that the bottle should have been found so far from the probable scene of any raider’s activities, but the sea has strange ways, and even the doubters came to believe in the end that there was still hope for passengers and crew. What additional information the Admiralty possessed will probably be disclosed later, but about a month ago the Australian Navy Department informed those concerned that news which was considered reliable suggested that the Matunga had been captured, and that there was no reason to suppose the deaths of passengers and crew.