SAMOAN UNREST.

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXV, Issue 17775, 11 October 1927, Page 4

SAMOAN UNREST.

CASE BEFORE FULL COURT. APPEALS AGAINST BANISHMENT ORDER. By Telegraph—Pres* AegqMutloa. WELLINGTON, Oct. 10. The Full Court, consisting of Judges Sim, Herdman, Reed, Adams, and Ostler, began the hearing to-day of the cases Fuataga v. Inspector of Police in Western Samoa, and Tagaloa v. same.

Sir J. Findlay, K.C., with Mr R. E. Harding, appeared for appellants; and Mr Myers, K.C., and Mr Currie for respondent. The facts are that two natives of Samoa, Tagaloa and Fuataga, were on sth July last served with decrees of local banishment, ordering them to leave the village of Lalomanga and remain outside the district of Taumasaga for a period of three months. These decrees were issued in pursuance of the Samoan Offenders Ordinance of 19 22, which gives the Administrator power to make decrees of local banishment, “if he is satisfied that such course is necessary in the public interest.” On July 7th these two natives were found in Apia, which is within the district of Tuamasaga, in breach of the said order. Accordingly, on 9th July, they were charged before the Court at Samoa with non-compliance with the order, and after pleading not guilty were found guilty and convicted. It is against these convictions that Fuataga and Tagaloa are now appealing. As the two cases are identically similar in every particular, it was proposed to argue only one; and that of Tagaloa was chosen for the purpose. Sir John Findlay, in opening for appellants, said the powers given to the local Government of Samoa by the ordinance of 1922 were of the widest possible nature, but there was no provision requiring an enquiry before decree of banishment can be made, and it was his intention to show that the ordinance was void on this account, and because it provides a form of punishment not included in the Samoan Act of 1921. He also contended that the Act of 1927, passed this session, establishes crimes unknown to New Zealand law —matrimonial offences, for instance. In reply to a question by Mr Justice Reed, Sir John Findlay said that all offences levelled at good order and Government in Samoa, which were in general sedition, were the object of the ordinance of 1922. He submitted that the Samoan Act of 1921 is ultra vires of the New Zealand legislature, and that even if the Samoan Act of 1921 is ultra vires, then the banishment and imprisonment of appellants under the ordinances of 19 22 are ultra vires. The Imperial Peace Act 1919, under which the mandate was given to New Zealand, did not extend the jurisdiction of any Colonial power, and no order under it could do so. He also contended that the Foreign Jurisd.ction Act, IS9 0, had no bearing on the case, as mandates had never been thought of when it was passed. As to the Act of 19 21, even if intra vires, he argued that the ordinance of 1922 was not, as the parties against whom it was exercised had been given jao opportunity to appear. That Act, ■jfnoreover, contained no provision empowering the local Government of Samoa to inflict the punishment of banishment. This penalty differed entirely from that previously exercised by the tribune authorities of Samoa. The fact that the Act of 19 27 made express provision for banishment went to show that the Crown Law Office was aware that the ordinance was ultra vires. Mr Harding, in support, also argued that the ordinance was invalid. The Magna Charta and the Habeas Corpus Act gave all British subjects the right of trial, and this was taken awav from the Samoans. Mr Mvers, in opening for the defence, said the , appellants, while invoking the jurisdiction of the Court for their relief, were endeavouring to show that it had no jurisdiction. Their proper course was to. go to the Court of the King’s Bench. The case stands adjourned.