The Action Against Sir Arthur Gordon.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 4746, 17 July 1883, Page 3

The Action Against Sir Arthur Gordon.

[Fbb Pbbss Assooiatioh.J WELLINGTON, July 16. At the Supreme Court to-day the case of Hunt v. Gordon was commenced before Judge Richmond and a special jury. Mr E. fcikaw, with whom were Messrs H. Gully, A. de B. BrandoD, J. E. and E. T. ftforrah, appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Harper, with whom were Meaers H. D. Bell and Fletcher Johnston, for the defendant. Mr Shaw opened the case for plaintiff. The action was brought to reoorer £8000 damages for alleged false arrest and deporting the plaintiff out of Samoa. Walter James Hunt was a resident in the Western Pacific district at Samoa, and defendant, Sir Arthur Hamilton Gordon, was High Commissioner of the Weßtern Pacific Islands, although whether or not Samoa was in defendant's jurisdiction at tha time in re* spect of whioh the action was brought was a matter of law, upon which His Honor would doubtless direct the jury. He also quoted from a speech, addressed to King Malietoa I. of Samoa, on August 27, 1880, by Sir Arthur Gordon, in whioh Sir Arthur said he did not dispute His Majesty's right, as an independent Sovereign, to take suoh measures as he thought fit and saw need, for this clearly showed that Sir Arthur himself regarded Samoa as an independent Kingdom. Mr Shaw next referred to an Imperial Act, entitled " The Paoifio Islands Protection Act, 1875," one of the provisions of whioh set forth that Her Majesty may exercise power and jurisdiction over her subjects within any islands and places of the Pacific Ocean not being within Her Majesty's dominions nor within the jurisdiction of any citilieed power. The case of plaintiff wholly rested upon the question whether or not Samoa waß within the meaning of that Aot at all. If the jury, subject to His Honor's direction, found that the Act must be taken as applicable to Samoa, then they must override a vaßt mass of evidence whioh the plaintiff would present to them, and whioh would prove that for years past Samoa had been reoognised as a civilised independent State, capable of contracting treaties, and of administering the law to the full within ita own dominions. Plaintiff's contention was that Samoa was a civilieed power, and reoognised to be so, and ho would show that the islands which constituted the Naviftater group, over which the King of Samoa ruled, had been, bo far as we know anything about the Pacific Islands at all, a civilised State. The Act, therefore, did not apply to Samoa at all, and, consequently, the Ordersin-Council, purporting to be made under its authority, and relating to the Kingdom of Samoa, were ultra vires. Mr Hunt first arrived in the Western Pacifio Islands in 1577. He commenced business there, and carried it on till 1878, when he loft the Islands. In 1879 he returned, and commenced business in Apia, the chief town of Samoa, as agent, auctioneer, and contractor, and was doing a fair business. This he carried on till March 11, 1880, when Mr Hnnt was offered the position of Chief Secretary by King Maliotoa. The position appeared not to have been so much a political one as a purely confidential one, a kind of privy councillor to aesitt the King in administering, apart from the Legislature, the Government of the Kingdom. Mr Hunt was accordingly appointed ohief Secretary to the King on the date mentioned, and his appointment was notified to the foreign consuls. He continued to aot in a most energetio manner from that time until August 26, 1850. During the whole of that time he was Qctivoly employed with the King, the vice King, and wilh the captains of English and German men-of-war cruising about the islands, and endeavouring to make himself acquainted with the wants of the Natives and settle their disputes. On Maroh 12, 1880, Malietoa I. was appointed king of the islands, two drops of oil being placed on his head at the time of coronation, in the orthodox fashion, and on the 13th H.M.S. Danae saluted His Majesty's Sag, and the salute was returned by the Samoan King's schooner. This was an acknowledgment on the part of England that the King was not only King de jure, but also de facto. On May 18 of the same year, EMS. Cormorant arrived at Apia, and Captain Bruce was asked to convey Mr Hunt round the islands. 'It was suggested that some members of the two branches of the Legislature should take this opportunity of going round the islands. Captain Bruce (consented and the trip was made. Two days after thif he succeeded in settling a difference • with natives. On May 81 Captain Bruce I suggested that Mr Hunt should go in his • TOitel to an uhnd where he had some buai-

ness to transact. The business transacted about this time was very detailed, and he (Mr Shaw) did not intend to trouble the jury with it leaving the plaintiff to tell his own story. Counsel then went on to refer to certain business transactions on June 18, 1880, and said that evidence would be adduced to show that at that time plaintiff was not a naturalised British subject, but was a properly naturalised Bamean subject. Mr Shaw quoted from an Act passed by the Imperial Parlia> ment to show that a British subjeot could renounoe bis nationality on becoming the naturalised subject of a " foreign State," and bo thereafter regarded as a citizen, and explained that the existence of euch a law was not generally known. Counsel pointed out that the jury would have to decide the question whether at the time the alleged offences were committed Samoa was a Foreign State, and stated that in the year 1880 it was looked upon by Germany and other Powers as such. If the jury found that at the date «f imprisonment plaintiff was a naturalised subjeot of Samoa, then there could not be the slightest doubt that Sir Arthur Gordon had no more control over Mr Hunt than had the Eban of Tartary; and such being the case, plaintiff was entitled to receive damages. Counsel read a copy of an Act passed by the Samoan Legislature, on June 16, 1880, providing for the naturalisation of foreign subjeots, and stated that under this measure the plaintiff had become a naturalised subj«ot of Samoa. The Act had been passed through the exertions of Mr Hunt, who deemed it advisablo to get such a law passed, so that he might avail himself of its provisions to become a Bworn subject, and thus strengthen his position in the islands. Three or four days later on Mr Hunt took the oath of allegiance at the Capital, and on the 28th of the same month the King proclaimed him a Samoan subject. Previous to this Mr Hunt had resigned his position as Chief Secretary, so that he might be appointed to the office as a Samoan subjeot. On August 28, 1880, the formal re-appointment to the position was made. Mr Shaw dwelt at considerable length on the question as to whether Samoa was a foreign State, and intimated his willingness to adduce proof on this point if such were necessary. Assuming that in 1880 plaintiff was a British subject, be (Mr Shaw) contended that Sir Arthur Gordon had no right to visit Samoa and exercise his jurisdiction over Mr Hunt, and should, therefore, be oaet in damages for undue exercise of his authority. Oouueel then referred to the steps taken by defendant in the direction of deposing Mr Hunt from the position which he held, and read the proclamation issued by the High Commissioner taking away his office (the salary of whioh was fixed at 3000 dollars a year), and forbidding him to reside in certain parts of the Islands for a period of two years. The jury were in^ formed that the Eing had been several times importuned to dismiss Mr Hunt from his official business, but persistently refused to accede to such requests, and, eventually Sir Arthur Gordon took the matter into his own hands and deposed the plaintiff. The reason of this action wbb to be fotmd in the fact that iir Arthur had conceived a plan for governing the Islands of the Pacifio, and found it necessary to remove Mr Hunt, beoause that gentleman did not look with favour upen tho soheme, and was a great obatruotion in the way of carrying it out. Oa his arrival, Bir Arthur Gordon submitted the draft of a treaty to the Samoan Government, which, if adopted, would h«v« had the affect of suspending She Government for six years, and would have given the High Commissioner for the time being everything he chose. L That was, as a matter of course, not accepted, being absolutely scouted by the residents. On August 27 Sir Arthur visited the Krog and delivered an addreij, to whioh the King replied that he could not then give an answer, as he wished to consult his Seoretarr on matters therein contained before doing so. Sir Arthur responded that he was speak* ing to the King alone, and, though Mr Hunt might be his Socretary, ho preforred that they should deal direotly with each other. In the evening they met again, and Sir Arthur soveral times requested the King to dismiss the plaintiff in this action. The King replied that Mr Hunt was a naturalised Samoan subject, and was his own secretary, and, more than that, iras his adopted son. On the same evening oomplaints against Mr Hunt were laid through the High Commissioner's private secretary, and the removal of plaintiff was again urged. Yet at this time Sir Arthur o*me to Mr Hunt, and desired information from him regarding the financial poßtti:n of tho King. This information was denied. On August 28 the request for Mr Hunt's removal was repeated, and Bir Arthur gdded that if that were not done he would rsmove him altogether and send a man who was better fitted for the position. Mr Haut was at once informed by letter that complaints had been made against him to the effect that his presence in Samoa was dangerous to the good Government of the Colony. Sir Arthur Gordon further asked him how he dared to thrust himtelf upon tho Samoan Government, knowing, as he must have known, that he was there simply at the request of the King. The answer made was that lir Hunt had aright to sell his labour in tho highest market, and that he bad not forced himself upon tho King, having been aeked to take the position which he then occupied, to whioh Sir Arthur replied that bb a British subjeot he (Mr Hunt) had no right to do anything of the kind. In support of tho assertion that Mr Hunt's presence was dangerous to the peace of the Island*, a document w»s produced, signsd and sworn to by one Graves, purporting to testify to the aeiertion. Then thero were also oomplaints made that Mr Hunt was interfering with politics. Amongst others who lodged oomplaints about him was the Consul for the United States, who asserted that plaintiff in this aotion had obstructed him in his duties. When the matter was looked into, it was found that the charge of disturbing tho peaoe of the country aroße out of the fact that Mr Hunt had suggested tho appointment of a Commitsion ts enquire into the manner in whioh foreigners had acquired land in the country.