The Wanganui Chronicle MONDAY, APRIL 2, 1934. SAMOA FOR THE SAMOANS

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 77, Issue 77, 2 April 1934, Page 6

The Wanganui Chronicle MONDAY, APRIL 2, 1934. SAMOA FOR THE SAMOANS

the Christchurch Businessmen’s Club, Mr. N. M. Bell proclaimed the doctrine of “Samoa for the Samoans.” There is nothing wrong with such a doctrine so long as it can be achieved, and that seems to be the whole crux of the matter. Were the Samoans capable of carrying on their own affairs without being exploited to their disadvantage, were a democratic organisation a real thing and not the show window of an autocracy, then the claim of the Samoans to administer their own affairs would be unanswerable. The specific grievances which are mentioned by Mr. Bell include some very debatable material. For instance, the dislike of the military administration of the New Zealand Government could be appreciated if it were wholly true that the administration is a military one. For instance, Sir Stephen Allen is a product of Cambridge University, and followed the career of a lawyer for which he was trained. He was only incidentally a soldier during the war period, and he returned to his legal practice in Morrinsville after the war ended. If he has any predisposition in the matter of administration, it is a legal, and not a military one. That the New Zealand Government has not achieved much in fitting the Samoans to govern themselves, may also be challenged. But even if this be conceded, which it is not, then it must be still asked whether that lack of accomplishment has been brought about by the conduct of the Samoans themselves. The tragedy of 1929, when Tamasese and others were shot down by “unnecessary rifle fire,” is again a matter upon which a viewpoint different from that held by Mr. Bell is tenable. If the rifle fire had been necessary and had not been engaged in, then the police would not have been able to tell their side of tale, because they would have been wiped out. The fact that there had been no such incident, either before or since, indicates that something extraordinary was enacted on the occasion of the “unnecessary” shooting. There was a riot, there was a disturbance of the peace, there was a resistance of the police in the execution of their duty, there was a flouting of executive authority, the police station was surrounded by excited natives, the natives were armed and there was no control exercisable by the Mau leaders over’ the rank and file of the demonstrators. Under such circumstances a mere handful of men can hardly be expected to look on and permit themselves to be massacred in order to find out whether rifle fire was necessary. Having placed men in a difficult position and having caused the death of a member of the police force, it is too biased an argument to claim at this date that the rifle fire was “unnecessary.” The difficulty with the Samoan situation is that there have been people directly working in opposition to the Administration, and they have been able to work under the cloak of “Samoa for the Samoans,” because in any country there are always administrative difficulties which can be developed into grievances. What makes the onlooker so suspicious of the talk about “Samoa for the Samoans” is that there is an alternative course fo follow, namely; to work with the Administration for the benefit of the natives. When such action is forthcoming the advice tendered by those who so co-operate is so strong that it cannot be denied consideration.