The New Zealand Tablet. Fiat Justitia. THURSDAY, MAY 4, 1899. THE NAVAL-MILITARY FARCE IN SAMOA.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XXVII, Issue 18, 4 May 1899, Page 17

The New Zealand Tablet. Fiat Justitia. THURSDAY, MAY 4, 1899. THE NAVAL-MILITARY FARCE IN SAMOA.

sg®B&* • §HE vast majority of the sixty and odd British wars of the present reign have been little wars. But the Victorian era — or, for that matter, the whole round of British history — has, perhaps, never witnessed such solemn tomfooleries as the socalled naval-military ' operations ' that are being canied out in the neighbourhood of Apia under the joint aegis of the Union Jack and the Stars and Stripes. The far-resounding military farce was preceded by a diplomatic blunder which apparently furnishes a fresh proof of the truth of the olo) saw, that men of the sword are seldom fitted either by nature or art for solving the big or little problems of diplomacy. There was a rather pretty miniature quarrel in Samoa over the kingship. Ib had not reached the dimensions of a decent * situation ' nor got beyond the province of an efficient chief of police, much less of a master in diplomacy, when lo ! two out of a trio of naval officers turned it into a war. And such a war !—! — contemptible on every count : in its purpose, in its methods, in the comparative fewness and scanty resources of the 'enemy' against whom it is directed, in the insignificant results attained by an expenditure of war-material that ought to have been almost sufficient to blow Samoa out of the water. De Quincey declared that he could tolerate anything, even rain — provided it rained dogs and cats. In like manner the average tax-payer can stand military fooling — provided the fooling is cleverly done. The charge of Balaclava and the fierce rush of the French cuirassiers at Rezon-** ville were samples of military folly. But it was magnificent folly — if folly ever can be magnificent. We not only tolerate it, but we huzza it, even though we know the gallant madness arose from the fact that * someone had blundered.' But if ever the history of the ' operations ' at Apia is written by the crow-quills that furnish the reports of the ' war' to the New Zealand daily papers, the world will learn to smile a broad, wise smile at mention of the name of Samoa.

The newspaper Press has, by common consent, agreed to give the situation the apt title of 'The Samoan Imbroglio.' The cardinal fact of this miserable muddle is thus stated by the Sydney Daily Tclcf/raph : ' Mataafa was unquestionably the people's choice.' lie was, in fact, elected by a risesixths majority of his countrymen. The British and American commanders, says the same paper, have ' interfered to maintain on his little throne the refugee king (Tanu), whom a majority of his people did not want,' and who cannot set foot on an inch of his ' territory ' except under the muzzles of his protectors' big guns. The riddle of the situation is still the selection of the boy Tanu, and the rejection of the people's choice, Mataafa, by Mr. Justice Chambers. Dr. Keffel, Mr. Osborne Lloyd (son-in-law of Robert Louis Stevenson and late American vice-consul at Apia), a-nd the Germans and French in Samoa persistently maintain that the decision was influenced by the London Mission Society, who are all-powerful in the island, and whose sympathies would not unnaturally lean towards a Protestant succession in Tanu as against a Catholic one in the person of Mataafa. It is the misfortune, if not the fault, of the Society that the line of their interests in Samoa coincides with the extraordinary judgment of Mr. Chambers. In all its circumstances, the charge made against the officers of the Society is of the gravest kind — one which, if groundless, they can effectually combat only by courting the fullest inquiry when the Samoan Commission sits. We shall natch their course of action with some degree of curiosity. • • • Meantime, one solid and instructive fact remains : Mataafa and his people have, consciously or unconsciously,

taken up arms in defence of ' the right of a people to choose its own rulers.' It matters not for our present purpose whether the principle is sound or unsound. It was enunciated again and again by the London Times when, in 18591860, it encouraged the Italian subjects of Pius IX. and Francis Joseph and Ferdinand to conspire and rebel. It was adopted by Lord Ellenborough. It was made a plank of public policy by Lord John Russell (then Misister for Foreign Affairs). It became the watchword of the British Press and of the great Parliamentary parties, and was even affirmed in the Queen's speech from the throne. Some animals devour their offspring, lhe Times has once and again eaten up the motive principles of political action to which it gave birth. Parliamentary parties have now and then followed suit. But it is useful to remember that consistency is as bright — if as rare — a jewel in 1899 as it was in 1859. And if there is anything in the principle that once swayed both Press and Parliament in Great Britain, then, indeed, was the action of the British and American commanders an outrage on the rights and liberties of the people of Samoa.

The movements, which are by courtesy termed military ' operations,' prove — if the reports from Apia are true — that the ' friendlies ' (or red-caps) that have been armed, fed, and lad against their Mataafan countrymen have no heart in the affair. The Samoan, like his kinsman the Maori, ia gifted with plenty of personal courage. And yet the special commissioner of the Otayo Daily Times on the spot tells with disgust how the native Malietoa forces ' took a great deal of persuasion to make them move ' against Mataafa ; how 'any little bravery they may have possessed now vanished entirely, and both they and the Tutuila men stayed where they were [at the front] in a blue funk ' ; how on one occasion they ' cleared out,' on another bolted pellmell and without cause from a captured Mataafa fort ; how again they had to be brought back to the firing line at the muzzles of their officers' revolvers ; how on many occasions they ' swam off to the boats ' or had to be (euphemistically) ' retired ' from the fight ; how * the women were not such cowards as the men ' — and more to the same effect. One of the rare breaks in the charge of poltroonery against Malietoa's men is a description of a dozen of them suddenly finding heart, and, without sustaining a scratch, puttiDg to ignominious flight two thousand Mataafa men who had ' plenty of ammunition ' and were filling the air with Hying lead. We may dismiss this Sail story ' without further parley as one of the kind that sane people reserve for the marines. Lhe Ota/jo Diiihj Time* commissioner credits the Mataata men with considerab'c pluck, great determination to ' fight till death,' and remarkable skill in the construction of forts, palisades, obstructions, and other military works. Mai.ietoa's followers are of the same race, brought up together in the same villages under like conditions. All things considered, we are less inclined to view their lack of zeal at the front as the result of poltroonery than as the outcome of a conviction that it is scarcely worth their while to risk their dusky skins in so unpopular a cause as that of the schoolboy Taxi*.

A singular feature of the ' war ' in Samoa has already been referred to : the amazing quantity of iron and leaden death that was fired into the island, and the ridiculously small results obtained from so vast an expenditure of destructive energy. For weeks the warships, the military, and the ' f riendlies ' were ' pumping lead ' (that is the correct expression ever since the battle of Omdurman). At every 'battle' the air was thick with messengers of death. The screaming of the shells was a terror to hear ; the rattle of small arms so loud that the commissioner ' could not converse ' with a man standing beside him. Ihe note of description is pitched throughout in a high key. Gravelotte or Omdurman have scarcely been tricked around with such a frill of coruscating superlatives. And the results ? Save for the melancholy deaths of the three brave lieutenants and the four sailors — almost nil. A few ' rebels * and ' friendlies ' slain ; a few Mataafa boats and wretched hut-villages burned ; 'a quantity of tinned cats and several pigs ' captured after a desperate * battle.' And so on. After all this powderburning and shell-screeching and press sky-rocketing, who shall tell us now that Butler's Hudibras is mere comedy and Barnes Rhodes' Bombastes Fun'oso a mere stage-

extravaganza, or the Pirates of Penza nee only comic opera and nothing more ? The roar of the British lion and the scream of the American eagle on the shores of Samoa recall the words of the pugnacious Bomiusten when his nv.il, the noisy old king, knocked his boots off the tree :—: — So have I heard on Afric's burning shore, A hungry lion give a grievous roar ; The grievous roar echoed along the shore. To which the king — in this case Mataafa— makes reply :— So have T heard on Afric's burning «her<> Another lion give a grievous roar ; And the first lion thought the lt««f n or C The Samoan extravaganza has dragged on for many a weary week. People can stand extravaganza in strict moderation and for a brief space. lint the British and American Governments have evidently goL a surfeit of the follies that have been throwing ridicule and contempt on their respective flags in Samoa. They have stopped hostilities, and for the present Mataafa remains iti quiet possession, pending the action of the Samoan Commission.