Manawatu Evening Standard. TUESDAY, SEPT. 10, 1929. SAMOA.

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLIX, Issue 241, 10 September 1929, Page 6

Manawatu Evening Standard. TUESDAY, SEPT. 10, 1929. SAMOA.

Samoan affairs were under discussion in the House, of Representatives on Eriday, when, despite the apparent disposition of certain members of the' Labour Party to discredit the Government administration of Samoa, the commonsense attitude adopted by the Prime Minister in insisting that the Government could not and would not brook defiance from the Mau in the mandated territory was generally approved by members on both sides of the House. Sir Joseph Ward was very explicit in declaring that “the Government would not be coerced into tolerating an open defiance of the law or into negotiating with any body of Samoans who adopt this attitude” —that of defiance of the duly constituted authority acting under the mandate. It is a pity that a little group of interested people and a section of the Labour Party have allowed themselves to be led away by the belief that the Samoan Administration has acted in excess of its authority, and that the laws which govern New Zealand have equal application in the mandated territory; and, further, that the Samoan natives have reached that stage in their history when they are fit to govern themselves. Had that been the case the League of Nations would, without doubt, have granted the Samoans the right of “selfdetermination” —a much abused phrase by-tlie-way in its application to subject races still in leading strings. Alleged illegal actions on the part of Government officials in Samoa and certaip other charges, which were patiently investigated by the Royal Commission, the members of which were the late Chief Justice, Sir Charles Skerrett, and Chief Judge McCormick (of the Native Land Court) failed to receive substantiation at the inquiry, and no attempt was made to bring evidence in support of the graver charges, which were abandoned, although every opportunity was afforded those preferring them to appear in court and give evidence. The then Administrator, Sir George Richardson, came out of the inquiry with flying colours. So did his officers, the only fault found with the Administration being that it had been too lenient in its dealings with the recalcitrant native Samoans. The report of the Royal Commission, with that of the Adminis-

trator wlio personally attended the sittings of the Mandates Commission at Geneva, was accepted by the latter, Mr Nelson’s version of the Samoan troubles and his appeal to the Privy Council failing to discredit the Administration. But the agitation against New Zealand’s exercise of the mandate over Samoa has continued with a persistency worthy of a better cause, the imprisonment of the High Chief Tamasese and his release havingbeen made the occasion of demonstrations in Auckland, although such demonstrations were far from being of a general character. The Government all through has acted with the greatest toleration and patience showing itself loth to push matters to extremes, but nevertheless indicating very plainly that it has no intention of being coerced in the administration of the country or of giving up the mandate to any other country. While the Mau continues to passively oppose the Administrator and to maintain its organisation there can be no compromise. Successive New Zealand Governments have exercised the mandatory powers entrusted to them in generous fashion, and Sir Joseph Ward, in stressing that point, said on Friday that—

“In view of our genuine desire to meet any valid complaints, and of the impossibility of any New Zealand Government adopting a more sympathetic attitude towards the Samoans, I have no doubt that a settlement of the whole trouble, without hardship or injustice, can easily be effected if the Mau will make it possible by acknowledging the law. . . . On the other hand if the Mau and their supporters do not accept this method of adjusting the difficulty I shall be convinced, and I believe all impartial observers will be convinced, that their allegations of substantial grievances are not genuine. The House need have no doubt as to the present activities of the Administration in the direction of law enforcement.”

“The laws,” Sir Joseph further declared, “are there and while they remain there they must be enforced. If the Samoans break the law they have themselves to blame for the consequences, and if they resist the police in the execution of the law, then surely no one in New Zealand can possibly fail to agree not only that the police must be supported and protected, but that justice and tlie law must be enforced. No one either in New Zealand or in Samoa is above the law.” The Leader of the Opposition expressed cordial approval of the Prime Minister’s outspoken declaration of the Government policy, declaring in turn that “it was incontrovertible _ that New Zealand would administer Samoa according to the mandate.” Sir Joseph Ward, not without reason, found himself impelled to express the “hope that honourable members would bear in mind the fact that what might well be reasonable and justifiable criticism in the case of New Zealand politics lias a very different appearance, and often a very mischievous effect when reported seventeen hundred miles away in another language to people who at present are resentful _ of our administration and suspicious of our intentions.” A failure to recognise this will help to accentuate the trouble in Samoa.