G» 341. M. ©9. 1928. vi. — Extract.

LEAGUE OF NATIONS

Geneva, August 22nd, 1928.

PERMANENT MANDATES COMMISSION

EXTRACT FROM THE MINUTES OF THE

THIRTEENTH SESSION

(Held at Geneva from June 12th to June 29th, 1928,)

CONCERNING THE

Examination of the Report of the Royal Commission on the Administration of Western Samoa and Various Petitions relating thereto.

4-

SECOND MEETING

Held on Tuesday, June 12th, 1928, at 4 p.m.

^33' Procedure to be adopted in examining the Report of the Royal Commission and certain Petitions on Western Samoa.

The Ch a ir m a n said that the agenda of the Commission included two classes of questions concerning W estern Samoa arising out of : (#) The report of the Royal Commission ; and (6) A certain number of petitions.

The Commission requested the Chairman to direct the debates on Samoa in accordance with main outlines which it had drawn up.

S- d N. 200. 8/28. Imp, du J. de G. et de la T. de G. The C h a ir m a n proposed that, as the report of the Royal Commission also dealt with a considerable number of points raised in the petitions, the questions concerning these points should be asked during the examination of the report of the Royal Commission. Agreed.

After some discussion, M. Van R e e s and Lord L u g a r d noted th a t the New Zealand Government, in its letter of April 19th, 1928, apparently adopted the conclusions of the report of the Royal Commission (document C.P.M.719).

Lord L u g a r d said that he had learned that Mr. Nelson was at present at Geneva and had received a letter from his legal adviser requesting an interview, with the object of introducing Mr. Nelson. He had refused the solicitor’s request and he now wished to raise again the ques­ tion of principle which, in his opinion, was one of great importance. He did not think that the members of the Commission could informally hear petitioners to whom the Commission was not permitted by the Council to give an official audience. When the question was discussed whether the Commission might hear particular petitioners, some members had expressed the view th a t no objection could be made to members of the Commission receiving these peti­ tioners. He thought, however, that, if the members of the Commission could not receive petitioners in the presence of their colleagues, they should not receive them in private.

M. V an R e e s and his colleagues expressed their disagreement with this view.

After some discussion, the Ch a ir m a n closed the debate, expressing his confidence in the tact and diplomacy of his colleagues and the opinion that there was no necessity to impose upon themselves a rule as regards this matter.

TWELFTH MEETING

Held on Tuesday, June 19th, 1928, at 4 p.m.

853. Western Samoa : Letter from IW. Roberts, dated June 16th, 1928, regarding the Petitions of I¥ir. IMelson. Syria and the Lebanon : Letter from the Emir Chekib Arslan, dated June 4th, 1928, to the President of the Council of the League of Nations.

M. C a t a s t in i asked the Commission to decide how it would deal with the letters received from Mr. Roberts and the Em ir Chekib Arslan. If the norm al procedure applicable to petitions were followed, these letters ought to be communicated to the mandatory Power, whose reply might not arrive for six months. On the other hand, the mandatory Power might take umbrage if these letters were merely treated as pieces of information. He suggested that a copy of the two documents should be communicated to the accredited representatives of the Powers concerned, and that the Commission should ask them whether they were ready to make any reply on the subject of these letters. M. Catastini did not think that they contained any new facts necessitating prolonged enquiries.

M. M e r l in pointed out that the letter from Mr. Roberts, the lawyer employed by Mr. Nelson, was a mere commentary on the interrogation by the Commission of Sir James Parr at its twelfth session and was not a true petition. It could be communicated to Sir James Parr and to General Richardson in order that the matter might be settled. As far as the letter from the Emir Chekib Arslan was concerned, it could be communicated to the accredited representative, who could be asked if he had any objection to referring to this letter during the discussion of the report on Syria, or whether tie preferred that it should be sent to the mandatory Power. The Commission would comply with the wishes of M. de Caix in this respect.

Lord L u g a rd entirely agreed w ith the last suggestion of M. Merlin concerning the letter from Mr. Roberts. It would be preferable to settle this matter immediately rather than to re-open it a year hence. If the High Commissioner and the accredited representative had no objection, this would be the best solution to adopt.

Dr. K astl agreed with M. Merlin. The document in question was not a petition, but a reply from the lawyer employed by Mr. Nelson to the observations made by Sir James Parr during the last session on the personal character of Mr. Nelson.

M. P a l a c i o s and M. S a k e n o b e agreed with the observations of M. Merlin a n d L o r d Lugard. The above suggestions were adopted. — 3 —

THIRTEENTH MEETING

Held on Wednesday, June 20th, 1928, at 6 -p.m.

859. Western Samoa : Examination of the Report of the Royal Commission concerning the Administration of Western Samoa.

Sir James Parr, High Commissioner for New Zealand in London, and Major-General Sir George S. Richardson, K.B.E., C.B., C.M.G., former Administrator of Western Samoa, came to the table of the Commission.

Welcome to the Accredited Representative and Sir George Richardson.

The Ch a ir m a n , on behalf of the Commission, welcomed Sir James Parr, the accredited representative. The Commission had already had an opportunity of appreciating his competence and tact at the previous session. He would also thank the New Zealand Government for having sent Major-General Sir George Richardson to sit as a colleague of the accredited representative and to answer any questions the Commission might see fit to put in connection with the administration of Western Samoa.

Sir Jam es P a r r wished to thank the Chairman, for his kind remarks, particularly in regard to himself. He was delighted again to meet the M andates Commission. It was always a pleasant duty for him to come to Geneva and to lay before the Commission the position of the mandated territory of Samoa. His conception of the relationship between the Mandates Commission and the mandatory Governments was one of partnership. There should be, and there, would be between them, so far as he was able to control the matter, complete frankness and candour and a disclosure of all the facts with regard to the territory in question. Such was his conception of a great experiment th at was being carried on in the world to-day with regard to the m andatory form of government, and he hoped that the Commission would agree that he was not entirely wrong in that conception. So much with regard to himself. He wished now formally to present to the Mandates Commission his colleague Major-General Sir George Richardson, for five years Governor or Administrator of Samoa. His coming to Geneva was not merely a gesture of respect on the part of the New Zealand Government towards the Commission, though that was intended. The idea in the mind of his Government had been that Sir George Richardson should be com­ pletely at the service of the Mandates Commission to give it the fullest information possible with regard to the somewhat vexed question of Samoan conditions. Sir George Richardson was present as a colleague of Sir James Parr, not merely as a witness. Naturally, Sir Jam es P arr would take the senior position, the High Commissioner always being the senior representative. He counted himself fortunate, however, in having with him Major-General Sir George Richardson as his colleague. They were old friends of very many years’ standing, and Sir George Richardson was a man—if he might be allowed to say so—who enjoyed the respect of everyone in New Zealand. He had been in his time a very distinguished soldier, and the soldiers of New Zealand always regarded him, not only as a commander, but as a personal friend. As a soldier, he possessed humanity and sympathy, and Sir James Parr ventured to think th at a perusal of the records would show th at he had given proof of qualities of humanity, sympathy and patience in dealing with the great problem in Samoa.

Views of the Mandatory Power as regards the Findings of the Royal Commission.

The Ch a ir m a n , on behalf of the Commission, asked how far the Government of the mandatory Power endorsed the findings of the Royal Commission ?

Sir James P a r r replied that it endorsed them entirely. His Government especially wished ùim to call the attention of the Commission to the report of the Royal Commission. The New f'Saland Government was satisfied that that report correctly and impartially presented the acts. It was further of opinion that the conclusions of the learned Commissioners were sound. Sir James Parr wished to say one word about the composition of the Royal Commission, t was set up for two reasons. In the first place, Major-General Sir George Richardson had emanded it. He had been appalled last year at the mischievous misstatements—Sir James arr used the words advisedly—that were being sent out to the world about the situation in . amoa; He had felt that, in justice to himself and the Administration, an independent and impartial investigation of the whole situation should be carried out on the spot. Secondly, e Government had decided to set up this Commission because it had felt that the matter louid be removed from party politics, and the only way to do this was to ask for an investiga- nf’vr^ gentlemen of known integrity and impartiality who were outside the political parties 1 New Zealand. — 4 -

The two Commissioners who had formed the Commission were men of the very highest reputation in New Zealand. Sir Charles Skerrett was the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and had been known to Sir James Parr personally for a lifetime. It was safe to say that he was one of the ablest and most distinguished lawyers in Australasia. He was not only an expert jurist, but he was a man who was respected by everyone in New Zealand for his ability, integrity and honesty of purpose. It would not be exaggerating to say that the whole community of New Zealand respected highly the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Sir Charles Skerrett was also Governor-General in the absence at any time of the Governor ; he was the highest personage, next to the Governor-General, in New Zealand. The other gentleman associated with Sir Charles Skerrett was Senior Judge MacCormick, a Judge of the Native (Maori) Land Court in New Zealand, a man accustomed to investigating the customs and traditions of the Maoris, who were first cousins of the Samoans. It was obvious that his special knowledge was taken into account in appointing him together with the highest judicial officer in New Zealand. Sir James Parr had given this explanation in order to show that possibly no two other men in New Zealand could have been appointed who would have had better or higher qualifications for this important task. As regards the question of the reputation for impartiality of these gentlemen, he would say that even the Samoa Guardian, Mr. Nelson’s newspaper, the newspaper promoted and issued in Samoa by the half-dozen European leaders of the agitation, in a leading article said this : “ The hearings were patient, and from all indications the scope of the investigation is very broad. The incredulous should now believe that all complaints and objections in the petition of the Samoans and in the reports of the citizens’ committee will receive impartial treatment, unaffected by any party or political feeling. Its membership is a full guarantee of all these. The integrity of Sir Charles Skerrett and Judge MacCormick is, in our opinion, above suspicion and beyond reproach. ”

Possible Causes of the Unrest: (a) Complaints of the European Population (Prohibition, Copra Policy, Alleged Extravagance of the Administration).

The C h a irm a n said that, if the accredited representative thought fit to make a statement, the Commission desired it to be confined to the following points :

1 . What were the first symptoms of the unrest and the progressive development of the hostile attitude of the opposition to the Government ? 2. What repressive measures had been applied (a) of a m ilitary, (b) of a legislative, nature ? 3. What measures had been taken to calm the agitation ? 4. What was the present position ?

Sir Jam es P a r r replied that he was entirely in the hands of the Commission. He desired, however, to make a statement with regard to the scope of the enquiry of the Royal Commission, what it covered, what its results had been, and the views of the New Zealand Government upon it.

M. V an R e e s , in connection with the first question of the Chairman, explained that what the Commission was anxious to obtain were the views of the mandatory Power on the principal immediate and deep-seated causes of the outbreak of agitation in Samoa, and of its development.

The C h a ir m a n , on behalf of the Commission, explained that, if the accredited represen­ tative preferred, Sir George Richardson could, of course, reply to any question put.

Sir Jam es P a r r suggested that the best procedure would be for him to m ak e any state­ ments of a general character and for Sir George Richardson to supplement them if necessary and answer any questions of detail.

The C h a irm a n said that this procedure would fully meet the desires of the Commission. Could Sir James Parr reply to the questions which he had put ?

Sir Jam es P a r r said that he would reply in full to the questions and would, a t the same time, give the views of his Government regarding the Royal Commission. He continued as follows : " I should like to point out that the Order of Reference of the Royal Commission is very wide ; it covers all complaints. These complaints-—and I must mention this fact in approaching the question of the causes—have been divided by the Royal Commission into two categories. First, the complaints of the white people, and secondly the complaints as regards native matters. There are different causes for each. “ As regards the complaints of the whites, they may be classed briefly under three headings —prohibition, the marketing of copra by the Administrator on behalf of the natives as their agent and, thirdly, charges of extravagance in the Administration. " As regards the natives, the charges may be said to be first and generally that the methods of the Administrator have been tyrannical, that he has set himself up as a dictator, that he has taken measures abrogating old native customs, and that his administration of native affairs has been oppressive. That, in a few words, is the sum total of the charges. " All these matters were enquired into by the Royal Commission. The views of three hundred witnesses were heard ; the Royal Commission sat in four different places in Samoa, on the spot, for five weeks. They investigated the complaints of the whites, they investigated the complaints of the Samoans, and, I should say— before I pass to the question of the causes of the unrest—that the Royal Commission in every instance vindicated the Administrator. There has never been a more complete vindication of an Administration than that made by this Royal Commission. May I at this stage read a striking paragraph in the findings—page vi:

“ ‘We think that it is a significant circumstance that with reference to the acts of the present and the previous Administrator, both on the European and Native sides of their administrations, no act of malfeasance, misfeasance or misconduct on their part, or on the part of their European officials, was charged by the complainants. At one time it was suggested that charges of this nature might possibly be made against the present Administration, but absolutely no evidence of such charges was tendered before us. Furthermore, except in respect of so-called orders of banishment, of orders for the depriva­ tion of titles, and of orders requiring Natives to return from Apia to their homes made late in the year 1926, or in the year 1927 in connection with the operations of the Mau organisa­ tion—which will be later dealt with—no allegation was made that the Administrator or any of his Head Office officials had acted in a high-handed or arbitrary manner. The absence of such allegations speaks highly for the spirit in which the administration has in the past been conducted.’

“ Dealing now with the complaints, the first was prohibition. This is a very old complaint. The whites cannot get liquor except as medicine, and a fair amount of medicine—I hope the General will pardon me—is drunk, I am told, whether for the good of their health I know not. But prohibition is general ; it applies to both races, and the New Zealand Government is firmly resolved, notwithstanding the dissatisfaction of certain whites in a population of 40,000, to keep the prohibition of liquor still universal. It feels that no differentiation can be made between the natives and the Europeans with any degree of logic or reason. There is one diffi­ culty, to which I should like specially to refer. It is said ‘ An Englishman likes his beer, and why should not he have it ? ’ Such is the attitude of some of our people. "In this connection, however, there is a difficulty which to my mind is fatal. I said there were 400 Europeans of pure blood in Samoa. There are also 2,000 half-castes. A very large number of the half-castes live with the Samoans in native fashion, not as Europeans. Now, according to the Samoa Act, a half-caste is, for all purposes, deemed to be a European. This creates a very serious difficulty sometimes, since many half-castes are not living as Europeans and therefore, for all practical purposes, are Samoans. So, if legislation were passed to the effect that Euro­ peans should have liquor and the Samoans should not, the following extraordinary position would arise : the half-castes living with the Samoans would be entitled to whisky and wine and beer, but their uncles, their cousins or their aunts living with them could not get it, and there would be such confusion as to make control absolutely impossible. Further, as Sir George Richardson reminds me, the Samoans themselves, the natives, are very pleased th at there is one law for them and the white man. " One extraordinary thing, one extraordinary anomaly, in this most extraordinary agitation, to my mind, is that Mr. Nelson and his half-dozen white agitating friends have succeeded in inducing the Samoans to petition you, or at any rate the New Zealand Parliament, to give liquor to their poor friends, the whites, who are without it. The Samoan petitioners do not ask for it for themselves, but they think the poor injured white man ought to have it, and they have put this in a petition—so easy is it to get a Samoan to sign anything that these few influential gentlemen on the beach desire. “ Now, as regards prohibition as the cause of the unrest, I think it is obvious that there will never be satisfaction among the whites. We cannot hope for it. But you, Sir, or the League of Nations, have given us a mandate under which we are to study the interests of the natives above everything else, and the Parliament of New Zealand is resolved to keep prohibition universal in the interest of the natives. “ I do not think I need say any more with regard to that. The Royal Commission found as follows (page vii of the report) :

“ ‘ It appears clear that the legislation has proved effective to prevent, so far as could reasonably be expected, the consumption of intoxicating liquor by Samoans.’

" It has been reasonably effective. I think you will be satisfied to note that that is the opinion of the Royal Commission. The Samoan does not, as a rule, get liquor. His end would be soon in sight if he did so.”

M. Van R e e s thanked Sir James Parr. He was sure that all his colleagues thoroughly agreed with the accredited representative on this point, and that everyone approved of prohibi­ tion itself. It would, however, be interesting to know whether the mandatory Power was of opinion that prohibition counted amongst the fundamental causes of the unrest.

, ,. Si-r James P a r r replied in the affirmative. He would proceed step by step and begin by 'mg the white man’s grounds for complaint. — 6 —

M. V a n R e e s pointed out that the Commission was already aware of the complaints made by the whites in connection with prohibition. No doubt prohibition had given rise to objections on the part of the whites, but could it be said that the resentment, to which these complaints bore witness, was one of the actual causes of the movement which had broken out ?

Sir Jam es P arr replied in the affirmative. He added that Sir George Richardson, who had been in the country for five years, had said that it was one of the greatest causes of the white man’s dissatisfaction that he could not get liquor whenever he wished.

M. R a p pa r d thought it would be well, before proceeding further, to clear up this point entirely. It might appear a little subtle, but was, he thought, very real. The Royal Commission had, under its terms of reference, been expressly entrusted with the duty of investigating the complaints. Complaints were symptoms of unrest, but the Commission was interested in the real causes of the unrest. For example, when there was an election in the United States and there was an economic crisis, the election went against the Government in power ; that was to say, the real cause of the dissatisfaction with the Government was to be found in the economic conditions. But no one said so. The Commission was interested—and it was for this reason that its task differed somewhat from that of the Royal Commission—in determining what the real causes of the unrest were, and not the alleged grounds of discontent.

Sir Jam es P a r r would endeavour to assist the Commission to get at the causes of the unrest. At the same time, he thought it equally important that the Commission should know first : (i) what were the charges and complaints, and (2) whether there was any reasonable cause for these charges.

The Ch a ir m a n said that, if prohibition was a fundamental cause, why was it a matter which had not constantly arisen ? How had it come about that, in the reports for the previous years; no trace of the dissatisfaction caused by prohibition was to be found ? Prohibition had not been introduced recently, but had been in force for some years. It would therefore appear that the discontent must have been prevalent for some years also.

Sir Jam es P a r r thought that perhaps he was hardly at one with the Commission. Did the Commission desire him to deal with the dissatisfaction of the natives or of the white men ? He was trying, step by step, to show the reasons and causes of the discontent felt by the different parts of the population.

The Ch a ir m a n said that what the Commission desired was not what he might describe as a second edition of the various documents already before it. It wished to receive a reply on the three points he had already mentioned.

Sir Jam es P a r r asked about whose feeling of discontent the Commission desired information. Was it the white man’s or the Samoan’s ?

The Ch a ir m a n replied that it was for the accredited representative to tell the Commission this. Perhaps both or neither were discontented.

M. R a p p a r d recognised that the distinction was difficult to draw. In order to make the meaning of the Commission quite clear, he would take the following case. The Commission did not wish it, but supposing for the sake of argument that the mandatory Power authorised the consumption of liquor, would the whites really be more contented ?

Sir Jam es P a r r replied that they undoubtedly would be.

M. R a p p a r d enquired why they had not shown their discontent during the time that prohibition had been in force ?

Sir Jam es P a r r replied that they were always showing their discontent.

M. R a p p a r d remarked that this had not been mentioned in the reports.

Sir Jam es P a r r explained that the whites had not made an agitation or organised public meetings on the subject, or petitioned the Commission. Prohibition, however, had been a cause working all the time against the Administration and this had been so apparent that it could almost be taken for granted. It had inclined many of the whites very strongly against the Administration all the time, and had made them more prone to agitation.

M. R a p pa r d pointed out that for several years there had been no agitation although this cause was already in existence. That showed that there must have been some fresh cause to determine the agitation.

Sir Jam es P a r r replied that there was no one particular cause ; the causes were cumulative. He had been taking them in order and was now coming to the next one, namely, the marketing of copra, which was a very important question for the white traders.

M. V a n R e e s asked whether the complaints against prohibition had come only from private persons, or had the white officials associated themselves with those complaints.

Sir George R ic h a r d s o n replied that the officials had not complained.

Sir Jam es P a r r passed next to the question of the marketing of copra. The dissatisfaction on this score synchronised very closely with the beginning of the interference by the whites in native matters. He ventured to suggest that this question of the marketing of copra by the — 7 —

Administration had had something to do w ith the beginning of the trouble which had started with the natives at the end of 1926. Before October 1926, it might be said, speaking generally, that for three years the administration had been one with which the population was more than usually contented.

Sir George R ic h a r d so n said that there had been absolutely no open dissatisfaction in Samoa either on the part of the withe population or of the natives up to the time of the holding of the combined meeting of Europeans and natives in October 1926. He knew, however, that some of the white residents had been dissatisfied with the liquor law and wanted it revised, and that the three elected European members of the Legislative Council—Mr. Nelson, Mr. Westbrook and Mr. Williams resented not having the power to revise this law. He also knew that those three persons wanted power over native matters over which he had resisted any attempts to give them control in the Legislative Council unless such matters had previously been referred to the native chiefs. Such was the position in October 1926. There was no open agitation, but it was known that those three persons, who had called the meetings and had worked up the recent agitation wanted to achieve two objects—the revision of the prohibition law and power to intervene in native affairs.

The Ch a ir m a n asked whether Nelson was a European ?

Sir George R ic h a r d so n replied that he was registered as a European. All half-castes were so registered, since they could not have any say regarding the communal lands of the natives.

Sir Jam es P a r r repeated that October 1926 was the important date as regards the begin­ ning of the troubles, particularly with the natives. Just before that time, not only the question of prohibition, but also the question of the marketing of copra had been influencing the whites. Sir George Richardson had for years been receiving requests from the District Council—from the natives themselves—to apply the same system in mandated Samoa as existed in American Samoa. In American Samoa, the Government acted as the agent, took the copra from the native grower and sold it, deducting a small commission and giving the proceeds to the grower. In mandated Samoa, the traders fixed the price. There was no competition and the Government had never interfered. So constant had been this agitation on the part of mandated Samoans for Government intervention that, eventually, in the year 1926, Sir George Richardson, after obtaining authority from the New Zealand Government (since it was an important matter of policy, he naturally asked the Government for authority), declared that he was prepared to take copra and send it to the High Commissioner for New Zealand in London for sale in the best market. A small commission would be deducted for the trouble taken and the proceeds would be handed to the natives, who at the same time would receive advances up to £15 a ton of the price in order that they might live and not be driven to the traders’ stores to get credit, thus giving the trader a pull over them. Very large advances had been made against copra in this way. It was sufficient to say that the three or four trial shipments had realised the top price in the European market. The Samoans could produce wonderfully good copra. It wras their sole means of obtaining money. They produced a copra which the above experiment had showrn to be second to none. The trader, however, gave the Samoan producer the same price for good and bad copra indiffe­ rently, with the result that there was no encouragement to the Samoan to grow good quality copra. The result of the experiment was that the Administrator was able to give the Samoans nearly twice as much as they had been receiving from the traders. The Samoans said to him : “ Our cousins in American Samoa are getting so much a ton, but we are getting about half that from the traders ”, and so the results proved. There can be little doubt that in the mind of Nelson, who was the biggest copra buyer in the territory with forty stations all over the islands, there was created an antipathy towards the Administration which, in Sir James Parr’s view, had very serious results. In this connection, he would quote a sentence from page x, paragraph 2, of the report : “ It cannot be said that the conditions under which the Samoans sold their copra to the traders were just or reasonable.”

M. R a p p a r d asked when, in Sir George Richardson’s view, Nelson became convinced that the Administration intended to enter the copra trade, when the policy of engaging in the copra trade had been publicly announced, and when it was put into effective operation.

Sir George R ic h a r d so n replied that the natives had brought up this matter at every f aipule Fono from the year 1923—the first year of his administration—until the time of his departure. He had promised them that, if they would produce good copra, he would get the Government to help them to ship it to England, just as the administration was helping Euro­ pean traders with their cocoa and copra. The natives had been very slow in taking up the idea 01 producing a superior quality of copra, but in 1926 he had been informed that the copra had been improving to such an extent that it would be possible to obtain a sufficient quantity to justify a shipment, in order to try the market and to see if it were possible to help the natives m this respect. - 8 —

During 1926 and before the trouble started, it became known that the Administration would carry out this plan as soon as the Faipules from the different districts had assembled, when the Administrator would be able to make arrangements with each district. He went so far as to show to the President of the Chamber of Commerce the letter giving him the necessary authority. It was well known therefore, before the trouble started, that the Government was going to help the natives with their copra. The business community were all aware of the proposed policy. But no official announcement was to be made until the Fono of Faipules met in December 1926. Sir George Richardson wished to make a further explanation. During 1926, he had been appointed a member of the Royal Commission to the New Hebrides. He had investigated the copra situation in the New Hebrides, in Fiji, in Tonga and in Tutuila, and had found that the French were giving the natives £5 or £6 more per ton in the New Hebrides than was being given in Samoa, in Fiji about £5 a ton more, in Tonga about £4 a ton more and in Tutuila about £9 a ton more. The natives insisted that the Government should do something, and the Administrator had felt that he could not wait later than the Fono in December. He then announced that he would take shipment from those districts where the copra could be handled and where the natives would produce the superior quality of copra to which Sir James Parr had referred.

M. R a p pa r d asked Sir George Richardson whether, in his opinion, the improvement in the quality of copra noted between 1923 and 1926 was due to the hope that the policy recommended by the Faipules would be adopted by the Administration.

Sir George R ic h a r d so n replied that it had been hoped that, if the quality of the copra improved, the price on the London market would be greater, and that the merchants would give them the benefit of this. The quality of the copra did improve, and a higher price was paid in London for Samoan copra than the price given for what is called South Sea copra, w'hich was notorious for its inferior quality. Nevertheless, last year he had had statistics prepared showing the average price paid to the natives in Samoa for their copra, which had proved to be only £10 6s. 11 d.

M. R a p pa r d did not think that the above reply quite answered his question. From 1923 to 1926 there had been an improvement in the quality of copra, and the Administrator had declared that he had replied to the repeated requests by the Faipules for Government interven­ tion by saying that, when the copra improved, the Administration would consider the possibility of entering the market. He would like to know whether, in the view of Sir George Richardson, these repeated declarations had had any effect on the improvement in the quality of the copra produced by the natives.

Sir George R ic h a r d so n replied in the affirmative. Those declarations, together with a very great deal of propaganda on the part of the Administrator and on the part of the inspectors to encourage the natives to make better copra, had had considerable effect. Natives would never do any extra work unless they saw that they were going to get some benefit from it, and they were led to believe that, if they made better copra, they would receive this benefit, and it was for this reason that they had undertaken the work.

Mr. G r im s h a w , referring to the price of £10 6s. 11 d. just quoted by Sir George Richardson as the average price paid to the native for copra in 1927, asked whether, in view of the improve­ ment W'hich had taken place in the quality of the copra since 1923, there had been any change in the price paid to the natives between 1923 and 1926.

Sir George R ic h a r d so n replied that there had been no change in the price p aid by the merchants and local traders.

Sir Jam es P a rr wished next to deal with the charge made b y the whites regarding the extravagance of the Administration. One of the causes of unrest was a belief, inculcated in the minds of some thousands of natives by Mr. Nelson and his Committee, that the Administration was inefficient and grossly extravagant, and that the taxes were being wasted by the Administration. Such reports were sedulously spread by Nelson and reported in the local opposition newspaper, and the natives became suspicious that all these services were costing far too much, that the white officials were overpaid, and so on. The natives were also frightened by gross untruths about the Government loan. It would be sufficient to say that all these charges, made before the Royal Commission, broke dow’n. The Royal Commission said very pointedly (page xi) : “ The evidence before us wTas avowedly confined to making a comparison between the Samoan expenditure and the expenditure in the Fiji and Tonga groups. ” This was the only evidence that was tendered in support of all the propaganda that had been going on and which had had so great an effect on the natives. If the figures prepared by Mr. Nelson, Mr. Gurr and Mr. Smyth were correct, to say that there was great extravagance was to understate the position ; but, fortunately, it turned out that the figures were absolutely false. Referring to the first comparison, made between Fiji, Tonga and Samoa (page xi), the report states : “ In the report at page io1, a comparison is made between the costs of the Post and Telegraph and Telephone Departments of Samoa and Fiji. The cost of the S a m o an

1 “ Report of Visit by Hon. W. Nos worthy, Minister of External Affairs, to the Mandated Territory of Western Samoa”. (State Paper 1— A. 4 B.) Department is correctly stated to be £8,050 and the cost of the Fijian Department is stated to be £11,494. This latter figure, it is admitted, should have been £27,688. Mr. Gurr, in cross-examination, admitted that the correct comparison with the Samoan figures should be not with £11,494, but £27,000. ” Quite a small mistake !!! A second example occurred on the same page of the report (page xi) : “ In the report at page 10, a comparison is made between the expenditure in connec­ tion with the Department of Agriculture in Samoa and Fiji. The cost of the Samoan Department is correctly given as £3,250, and the cost of the Fijian Department is stated to be £4,195. The Fijian figure was admitted by Mr. Gurr to be entirely incorrect, and, instead of being £4,195, should have been £34,955. ” He was wrong by over £30,000. These were fair samples of the propaganda that had been deliberately spread abroad. They were palpable misstatements. The Royal Commission seemed too polite to say this ; it said that it was very difficult to understand, but Sir James Parr would suggest that those figures could have been nothing else than gross misstatements made with a view to unsettling the Samoans. He would ask Sir George Richardson to tell the Commission of similar events which had occurred at the time of the German occupation of Samoa. They had nearly resulted in a war.

Sir George R ic h a r d s o n referred the Commission to page 270 of the Royal Commission’s report, on which was given the evidence of a native named I’iga. I’iga Pisa had been one of the natives deported to the Marianne Islands in 1908. He explained in his evidence how the minds of the natives were perturbed by information given to them to the effect that the German Government was wasting their money, and how suspicious natives were on such matters. On that occasion, the natives had come over in large numbers to Upolu, and war had been threatened. Governor Solf had dispersed them, and later on had had to bring warships, seize the ringleaders and deport them. The trouble had then promptly ended.

M. R a p p a r d wished to summarise the information received up to the present. Of the three reasons for discontent on the part of the whites which had so far been discussed, one, prohibition, had existed since 1920, and could hardly therefore have produced violent effects suddenly in 1926. The second, extravagance, had been found to be without foundation, and therefore was not a real cause of discontent on the part of the whites ; it might have been a cause of complaint on their part, but it was not a real cause of discontent. There remained therefore the question of copra, and it seemed to M. Rappard that, judging from the information given to the Commission, it was the Government intervention in the copra field which had been the real, determining cause of discontent on the part of the white population.

Sir George R ic h a r d s o n considered that the original cause of discontent amongst three Europeans had been their desire for more power—the power to govern the country, the power to have something to say on native matters. The complaint about prohibition, or the discontent with regard to it, had always existed among a small number of the whites. He had asked many Europeans for their viewTs on the liquor question. They had all replied : “ We do not want the old days back again, we would vote against the sale of liquor or licences in this country, but we would like to get more liquor for ourselves when we w ant it. ” The copra complaint was a very real one on the part of two or three, or several, merchants, —a very real one, indeed—but he would not like to say that it was the sole cause of unrest. The small traders, who did not deal in copra, said that it was of great benefit to the territory, that it brought more money into circulation. The quantity dealt with by the Administration had been very small. The output of copra in Samoa per year was about 12,000 tons, but to date the Administration had only handled about 400 tons, so that the anxiety felt had not been with regard to the present, but with regard to what might happen in the future. Just before leaving Samoa, Sir George Richardson had asked his Resident Commissioner in Savai’i what was the feeling among the traders in the district where the Administration was receiving copra for shipment. He had replied that those traders approved of it because the natives had more money, and, therefore, spent more in their stores.

Sir James P a r r ventured to re-state the question to which M. Rappard wished to have a reply : Was the question of copra—at any rate in the minds of the predominant Europeans— a very strong cause of their determination to oppose the Administration ?

Sir George R ic h a r d s o n replied that it was one of the biggest and principal causes, out it was not the only one. The other two causes were those that had led up to this one, namely, the desire for power to control the natives themselves, and resentment that the Faipules under the system of self-government, should have so much power as regards native matters. He was absolutely certain on that point.

L ord L u g a r d referring to the statement that there were about 400 pure-bred Europeans ■ j country, asked how many of them were partisans of Nelson. How many of them were identified with the Mau in addition to the three members of Council ? — îû —

Sir George R ic h a r d so n replied that there w ere about six altogether. All the whites to-day were absolutely opposed to Mr. Nelson and to the Mau. They had sent a petition to New Zealand declaring their confidence in the Administration but had asked that their names should not be published because, in a small place like Samoa, they did not like to be publicly associated with any movement which might react on their business.

Lord L u g a rd asked then whether it was a mistake to say that the agitation was an agitation on the part of the whites.

Sir George R ic h a r d so n replied in the affirmative. He wished the Commission clearly to understand that to-day all the whites were opposed to the Mau except the two or three on the Committee, who were associated with and had caused this agitation. He wished also to add that a large majority of the half-castes were very bitter on the matter and very much opposed to the agitation.

FOURTEENTH MEETING

Held on Thursday, June 21st, 1928, at 10.15 a.m.

860. W ester51 Samoa : Examination of the Report of the Royal Commission concerning the Administration of Western Samoa (continuation).

Sir James Parr, High Commissioner for New Zealand in London, and Major-General Sir George S. Richardson, K.B.E., C.B., C.M.G., former A dm inistrator of W estern Samoa, came to the table of the Commission.

Possible Causes of the Unrest (continuation) ; (a) Complaints of the European Population (continuation).

The Ch a ir m a n recalled that, at the previous meeting, Sir James Parr had concluded his examination of the grievances and complaints of the white population of the territory. He asked Sir James Parr to proceed with his statement.

Sir Jam es P a r r wished, before leaving the European aspect of the problem, to revert for a moment to the answer given by his colleague Sir George Richardson to the important question of Lord Lugard concerning the attitude of the rank and file of the whites towards the Admi­ nistration. Lord Lugard had asked Sir George Richardson what was the attitude of the 400 whites of pure blood towards the Administration. Sir George Richardson had replied th a t— with the exception of the Nelson group of about half-a-dozen people—the white population was strongly for the Administration, and this reply, he thought, was worthy of special notice.

Sir George R ic h a r d so n said that an overwhelming majority of the white population had notified the New Zealand Government that they were not in sympathy with the Mau and had full confidence in the Administration.

Sir Jam es P a r r said that this Was proved by written representations to the New Zealand Government. The great proportion of the 400 whites were in business and naturally, for business reasons, had asked that the names given in their communication to the Government as to their attitude should not be divulged.

M. R a p pa r d asked when and by what constituency Nelson was last elected to the Legisla­ tive Council ?

Sir Jam es P a r r thought that Nelson was elected in December 1926, that was to say, just at the commencement of the trouble, and by the white population. At that time there had been no particularly strong feeling, judging from what General Richardson had told him.

M. R a p pa r d asked whether the accredited representative had the impression that, it Mr. Nelson were to stand for re-election now, he would not be re-elected ?

Sir Jam es P a r r replied that General Richardson had assured him—and that was his only means of knowing—that the feeling among the whites had completely changed to-day, as was witnessed by the document in the possession of the New Zealand Government which had been received from the white population.

Sir George R ic h a r d so n said that the document in question had been signed by very nearly the same number of persons as was to be found on the electoral roll. The great majority of the 400 whites now supported the Administration.

Sir Jam es P a r r wished to deal with one other point before passing in médias res with regard to the natives. What was the motive that had been in the mind of this group of dis­ affected whites ? The more he heard about it and the more he thought about it the more he — I I — felt that pecuniary interest was the dominating factor in the case of the most influential of the disaffected whites. He wished to refer once more to the vexed question of the copra scheme. How was it possible to ascertain what was in the minds of these people with regard to copra ? On that point, he would refer to the fact that the disaffected whites, who were engaged in the trade, had lodged a very strong attack, both in New Zealand and before the Commission, regarding the copra scheme. It was known in New Zealand that Mr. Nelson made a strong point of the copra proposals and had criticised them severely. Several of the whites who were interested in copra had given evidence before the Commission. It was interesting to turn for a moment to what they had said about the copra question, and in this connection he would refer the Commission to the evidence of Mr. Smyth, given on pages 188 and 189 of the report of the Commission. Mr. Smyth, who was one of the ringleaders, dealt in copra, and it was interesting to read what he had to say on this m atter. The lawyer asks him : “ Will you be kind enough to tell me the grievances of traders and business men against the Administration, leaving out Native grievances ? [That was a very pertinent question.] I do not want you to justify them, but to give them categorically The answer to this question was “ I cannot think of any at present ”, and this from one of the men who had made much of the mischief. Mr. Smyth was then asked : “ So far as your mind is at present concerned your grievances against the Administration relate to the administration of Native affairs ?" “ I do not say that ”, said Mr. Smyth, “ I should have said that the principal grievance of the Europeans was on finance ”. He was referring to the extravagance of the Administration, and so on. Now came the important part. The following question was asked Mr. Smyth : “ Apart altogether from th e suggestion that the expenditure in the Administration might have been more economi­ cal, the other grievances are mostly relating to Native administration. What do you say are the grievances under which traders and business men have laboured so far as the administra­ tion of the Samoans is concerned. You have told us of expenditure : do you want to refer to hospitals, for instance ? ” This was his answer : “ Government interference in the copra trade”. Then he was asked “ Anything else ? ”, and he replied “ I cannot think of anything else at the present time ”. Evidently the copra issue loomed largest with Smyth. Although they did not refer to the subject of copra, the next two replies were not without interest. The lawyer asked : “ Have you constituted yourself the protector and protagonist of Native interests, then ? Do you not recognise that in the part you have taken in connection with the Mau movement you have put yourself forward as the protagonist of the interests of the Natives? ” The answer was “ That is so ”. The lawyer continued : " Have you any special interest in the welfare of the Natives ? ” (A.) " I just want to see the wrongs righted.” (0.) “ You have no special interest except an altruistic interest in the welfare of the Samoans ? ” (A.) “ Yes.”

M. R a p pa r d wished to return to the reply given at the previous meeting by Sir George Richardson to a question which he had ventured to put concerning the dates of the evolution of the copra policy. The policy was becoming fixed in Sir George Richardson’s mind in the first half of 1926 and was publicly announced in December of that year and, he supposed, was applied at the beginning of 1927. Would General Richardson be good enough to tell the Commission why he had arrived at that conclusion at that date ? The quality of the copra, according to the reports, had been improving, though not particularly rapidly, ever since 1923. What had convinced the Administrator that something had to be done to secure for the natives the benefit of a better price ? Was it because the demands of the traders were becoming more and more unreasonable, the pressure on the territory more and more intolerable, or was it the result of the visit to Fiji ? What were the reasons why this date had been adopted for the application of a new policy concerning copra ?

Sir George R ic h a r d so n explained that the Fono of Faipules meets twice a year, in June and December. In June 1926, he had wished to introduce the scheme, to meet the demands which were becoming so strong that it was most difficult for him to resist the pressure. In every district to which he went natives complained against the Administration because of the copra prices. He had had a conference with his staff and with those who were engaged in the copra industry in the New Zealand estate, and they had found that there was not sufficient good copra to justify a shipment. For a shipment to be effective, that was to say, for it to be properly marketed and for a full report to be made, the shipment should amount to about 100 tons. The Administration found, however, that only small quantities here and there were being produced by some of the natives and that the bulk was not sufficient. He had then told the faipules that if, at the next Fono, they could produce copra in sufficient bulk for a shipment, a shipment would be made. In December 1926, reports had meanwhile been received that there was a sufficient quantity of good copra to justify trial shipments, the object of these being to test the market as to whether it would be possible to get a higher price, and it was on that account that the policy was adopted at that time. He had wished to adopt it before, but it had been necessary t0 wait until a sufficient quantity of good copra was obtained to justify a shipment. 12 —

M. V a n R e e s enquired whether the experiments had been continued.

Sir George R ic h a r d so n said that five shipments had been made to date, and the experi­ ments were still being continued. The total amount exported was only 400 tons up to the pre­ sent and the results had proved that this copra was superior to that generally produced by the natives, and was equal to the best copra that was put on the London market.

Mr. G rim shav? said that General Richardson’s reply a moment ago had seemed to clear up something which had remained somewhat obscure in his mind. Sir George had said yester­ day, if he was not mistaken, that no official announcement of his policy in regard to copra had been made until December 1926. His reply to-day, however, seemed to indicate that, at any rate, the Fono of Faipules knew in June 1926. He gathered that their meetings were public and were discussed so that the Government’s intention to pursue this policy had been known amongst the population in general soon after June.

Sir George R ic h a r d so n explained that it had been known before June that he was working on the copra scheme.

Mr. G r im sh a W remarked that Sir George had referred many times to the demand on the part of the Fono, or expressed in the Fono, that the Government should undertake this market­ ing of copra or should, at any rate, do something. How had that demand originated ? Had it been spontaneous on the part of the natives ? Did they receive intelligence from American Samoa or Fiji, or had it been suggested by the Administration.

Sir George R ic h a r d so n said that the natives of Western Samoa were inter-related with the natives of American Samoa, which was only 80 miles away. They travelled freely between the two places, and they knew before he had arrived there that the treatment in regard to copra given to the Samoans by the American Government was better than the treatment of the natives in British Samoa. Further, there is a Samoan village in Suva. Some of the Samoan chiefs visit Suva from time to time, and on coming back had compared the Fiji prices to the disadvantage of Samoa. The suggestions had originated with the natives themselves, and had been put to him at the first meeting of natives in 1923 when he had arrived in Samoa. They had been put at almost every meeting since. One chief actually said : " If you cannot help us, we shall be better under the American flag

D r. K a stl observed that, in the report of the Royal Commission, it was stated that the quantity of copra produced by the Samoans and available for export was about 12,000 tons, and General Richardson had just explained that the quantity taken over by the governmental scheme was about 400 tons. Were these 400 tons to be considered as part of the total production of 12,000 tons, or had the production of copra available for export considerably diminished since that time ?

Sir George R ic h a r d s o n replied that, in a normal year, the production of copra by the natives was about 12,000 tons. Last year, owing to the activities of the Mau, some districts had not worked as they should, and their production was about 10,000 tons. Only 400 tons had been taken out of that 10,000 tons as an experiment to test whether the Administration could help the natives to get a better price for their copra and whether it could induce them to produce what was wanted by the world’s market—a superior quality of copra.

Sir Jam es P a r r asked his colleague to supplement his last answer by explaining what had been the result of the experiment for the native producer ? How did it compare with the result given by the private traders ?

Sir George Richardson repeated that the average price paid to natives for copra last year had worked out at £10 6s. n d . per ton. This would be seen in his annual report for last year, which was to be dealt with by the Commission at its next session. Those natives w h o had produced copra of a superior quality, which the Administration had shipped on their behalf, had received approximately £17 or £18 per ton.

Dr. K astl wished to ask a question, in order to be able to compare the prices of £10 6s. lig­ and £17 or £18 per ton received by the natives. Had the copra taken over under the governmental scheme been specially chosen, or was it an ordinary copra, the same kind as was delivered to the traders ?

Sir George R ic h a r d s o n replied that the scheme had been initiated in order to teach the natives how to make what the world wanted, and instructions had been issued that the Adminis­ tration would not ship one pound of copra unless it was of superior quality. It was not therefore the same as that taken to the ordinary trader, who would accept almost any kind of copra that the natives might offer them. — 13 ~

Mr. G r im sh a w understood that, without action on the part of the Government, even this superior copra would have been sold to the traders at the normal average price, and not at a special, high-quality price.

Sir George R ic h a r d so n replied in the affirmative.

Sir Jam es P a r r repeated that the copra question had been a very disturbing element with some of the disaffected group, and one of the dominant motives in their minds in creating trouble. He would not weary the Commission by calling their attention to all the evidence, but would draw its attention to page 24, which contained a remark made by Mr. Dowling, who was a merchant. Mr. Dowling had given considerable evidence against the scheme. He criticised the advances. He said : “ General Richardson is advancing too much money. The Government will lose money. It is unsound financially”. Then he was asked: “Is that your only objection ? ” His reply was as follows : “ Yes, coupled with what I said before. Every commercial man has an objection to the Government interfering in private enterprise. (0 ) In what way is the Government interfering in your enterprise at present ? (A) Not to any great extent, but what I am afraid of is the ultim ate objective. ” That answer was significant of the fears of the merchants.

Sir George R ic h a r d so n remarked that, up to the present, the Government had not interfered with them in any way. The quantity of copra involved was so small. If the Administration had been able to prove that the natives could and would make superior copra for the world’s markets, it was its intention later on to issue a local ordinance, based on experience, protecting the natives by fixing a minimum price to be paid for the very best or first-grade copra. The object of this experiment was to help the natives and to prove what the Administration could do.

M. V an R e e s asked whether the ordinance in question had been issued.

Sir George R ic h a r d s o n replied in the negative. Although the activities of the Mau had rather upset the experiment, it was still being continued with a view to ascertaining whether the natives would and could produce such copra.

M. V an R e e s asked whether the natives themselves were aware of the fact that the Government intended to issue an ordinance, or was it only known to a few European traders.

Sir George R ic h a r d so n replied that, at first, it had existed only in his own mind that, if it were possible to make the scheme a success, the Administration would subsequently issue an ordinance. The Government did not wish to engage in private enterprise ; it only wished to protect the natives.

M. V a n R e e s gathered, therefore, that General Richardson had not spoken to other people of the future intention of the Government.

Sir George R ic h a r d s o n replied that he had spoken to some of the merchants in Apia, and had said that an ordinance would possibly be issued. He had also mentioned to some local merchants that they could solve the copra trouble in Samoa at any time if they would give the natives a better price for good copra, and so help to make them more industrious.

The Ch a ir m a n asked Sir James P a rr to proceed with his statement.

Sir James P a rr said he would leave the copra question with the final observation that, in his view, its importance in regard to the agitation which began at the instance of a small group, and nobody else, in 1926, could not be overlooked. With regard to the other point—namely, the charges of inefficiency and extravagance—he did not propose to take up much time. The Royal Commission had found that there was absolutely nothing in the charges, but Sir James Parr thought it his duty to point out just one fact. Some charges had been recklessly and, he thought, wickedly made. He would refer, as an instance, to the Medical Department. If there was one aspect of the administration in Samoa of which New Zealand was proud, it was the activities of the Medical Department. Its results were apparent and undeniable. At the present time the Samoans were increasing in number ; their death rate was lower than it had ever been ; the horrors of those tropical diseases, hook­ worm and yaws, had been dispelled by the efficiency of that department ; the sanitation of the villages had been immensely improved, mother care had been instituted. In short, the work of the department had earned the encomiums of some of the highest authorities in the world. He needed only to refer to one made by Dr. S. M. Lambert, one of the heads of the Rockefeller Institute. On page xiv of the report he was quoted as saying : “ In Samoa we have a long-visioned Administration which is giving every support to a strong Native Department and a modern Department of Public Health, these two working hand-in-hand. Yaws is well under control, and may be eradicated in the near future. Hookworm control measures are well advanced, and will now be prosecuted with — 14 —

the vigour given to the yaws campaign. Adequate sanitation, proper latrines, and pure water supply are gradually being installed in all villages. Definite plans are being under­ taken for child-welfare work in Native villages with the new year. ” On the same page of the report was a sentence by a very eminent authority, Mr. Buxton' a former Milner Research Fellow and now Director of Entomology in the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. Mr. Buxton said : " It is, perhaps, not impertinent to state that New Zealand provides a public health service which might serve as a model to any small tropical country, and that the adminis­ tration of that Department seemed to be characterised by vision and forethought. ” Such was the impartial testimony of a man well able to judge. What, therefore, had been done to unsettle the natives and to undermine their confidence in the Health Department and in the hygienic measures adopted for their benefit ? This little knot of men, the Nelson group in Apia, had spread all round among the natives the idea that the Health Department was costing too much and that it was inefficient. Everywhere their faith was shattered by mischievous propaganda. Sir James Parr wished to conclude his remarks on this question by pointing out a passage in the report (page 63). Mr. Williams, who was referred to on that page, was a close colleague of Mr. Nelson, who framed the charges. The lawyer was cross-examining him and, after quoting the opinion of the experts, said : “ Now, Mr. Williams, you heard that. Are you prepared now to withdraw, and apologise for, the report you made about the Medical Department in the face of that testimony ? ”—“ Yes, I will withdraw ”, replied Mr. Williams. Could there be more potent proof of the utter irresponsibility behind these complaints ?

Sir George R ic h a r d so n remarked that Mr. Williams did not carry out his promise.

Sir Jam es P a r r wished to read a little more of Mr. Williams’ evidence : " (Q) And you will apologise ? (A) Yes, I will apologise. (Q) And will you do your best to let the Natives know what they have working for them in this country ? (A) I will.” That was to say, Mr. Williams ignobly collapsed.

Sir George R ic h a r d so n repeated that Mr. Williams did not carry out his promise.

Sir Jam es P a r r , continuing, said that, in spite of his promise, Mr. Williams left the wrong ideas of the natives uncorrected, namely, that the Health Department was an extrava­ gant and inefficient machine. He would make no comment, however, beyond the observation that the Mandates Commission must be very seriously disturbed as to the bona fides of a man who would wickedly traduce a splendid department of worldwide repute in order to upset the simple and credulous natives for whom all this work was being so well done.

Possible Causes of the Unrest (continuation) (b) Complaints of the Samoan Population: Policy of the Mau : Native Self-Government : Banishments.

Sir Jam es P a r r would pass now to the much larger and more important issue of the native troubles. He would not deal with this aspect of the problem at any great length, because the question, when considered carefully in the light of the evidence given before the Royal Commission, was not difficult to prove and to understand. I t was clear that for three and a-half years before 1926 the natives had enjoyed under General Richardson a period of comparative prosperity and were not seriously discontented or dissatisfied. As a proof of that, he would refer to the findings of the Royal Commission on page xx. He would try to help the Commission to get at the date when the native trouble really began and he would suggest that, before 1926, there had been no real trouble. The Royal Commission, on page xx, referring to the question of the Mau, its genesis and growth, said :

“ We are satisfied that, until the public meeting of the 15th October, 1926, there was no real dissatisfaction amongst the Samoans with the Administration. There was in point of fact no satisfactory evidence of any dissatisfaction existing prior to that meeting.’ The report went on to refer to Mr. Williams, the man who had had to apologise for his reckless charges. It said : “ Mr. Williams, a member of the Legislative Council, who was concerned in the creation of the organisation, at page 71 of the Notes of Proceedings gave evidence as follows [this was one of the complainants, not one of General Richardson’s supporters] “ When would you say this unrest had commenced in Samoa ? — I should say there was a certain amount of unrest about three years ago. “ When in your opinion, did it attain serious proportions ? — There was growing unrest after the public meeting and from then on. “ Do I understand that there was no serious unrest before that ? — There was dissatisfaction.” “ But no serious unrest ? -— Oh, no—not serious unrest." - i 5 -

This was the admission of one of the strongest opponents of General Richardson. To continue the report (page xx) : “ The evidence of all the Native Government officials was to the effect that there was no real dissatisfaction amongst the Natives with the Administration prior to Mr. Nelson’s return in September, 1926. This is the opinion of Captain Bell, the Resident Commissioner of Savai’i, whose evidence is quoted later on. Certainly no satisfactory evidence was adduced before us from which we could infer the existence of any unrest or dissatisfaction amongst the Natives before this date.”

The Ch a ir m a n , intervening, said that he must ask Sir James Parr not to tire himself by going through all the points raised in the report. All the members of the Commission had read the report ; they had studied it thoroughly and were well acquainted with everything in it. They had discussed it and had even appointed a Sub-Committee which had examined the whole documentation. The Commission was asking Sir James Parr to be good enough to give it the point of view of the Administration, and, above all, what were, in the view of the Administration, the fundam ental causes which had given rise to such a situation.

Sir James P arr said that he was delighted to have the views of the Chairman, but that he could assure him he was under a misapprehension. He had no intention of going all through the long report. He was merely attempting to assist the Commission by discovering the broad facts as to when the trouble began, and then he had proposed to follow that up by suggesting where the trouble had originated. He thought the Chairman and himself were quite in accord, but he could see his way to abbreviating his remarks very much if the Commission assured him it had carefully studied the report. Referring to the question asked by the Chairman as to what, in the view of his Government, were the causes of the dissatisfaction of the natives, Sir James Parr replied that, broadly speaking, it was due to the ambition to meddle in native affairs of three white men in the Legislative Council—Nelson, Williams and Westbrook. It was the ambition of these men, and notably of Mr. Nelson, to be something more than an Advisory Council to the Administrator upon European affairs. The wish was to elect Samoans to the Legislative Council when they could control this Samoan section themselves and thus obtain the opportunity to dominate the Government. Organised propaganda from these people upset natives easily susceptible to agitation. The fact that the intrigue of these three men was the genesis of the Mau was abundantly clear. Mr. Nelson had returned to Samoa, after an absence of eight months, on September 24th, 1926. On the next day, a very important private meeting had been held in Mr. Samuel Meredith’s house. Mr. Nelson had forgotten all about that meeting in his evidence in New Zealand and so had the others. Fortunately, a native chief who was present had let the cat out of the bag before the Royal Commission. Mr. Nelson had said he had completely forgotten this meeting which was, however, the genesis.of the trouble. At that meeting, it had been decided to take a step fraught with the gravest consequences. Those three members of the Legislative Council had met two or three native chiefs, the foremost of whom was Lago Lago, a Europeanised chief who had just served a sentence of some months for theft.

Sir George R ic h a r d so n interpolated that the sentence had been, he believed, for two years, though he had been released earlier.

Sir James P a r r said that, at that small private meeting held on September 24th, it was resolved to bring the natives into the agitation. Why ? On page 330 of the report, the reason was given by a European named Brewster, who had told th e Commission what was in the minds of those three discontents, as they might be called. On that page Mr. Brewster said : " He (meaning Williams) said that without the Samoans at their backs they could do nothing ”, and further down on the same page, "... I told him that I would do whatever I could for him ; and then he mentioned about this meeting again, and he said, ‘ You should be there ; we are having about 500 Natives Williams said : ‘ We will be strong enough, but without them we could do nothing In plain words, the plan was to use the natives as a most powerful weapon against the Mandatory. Such was the cause of the native trouble. It was then resolved to bring the natives—whom, he would suggest, had been reasonably satisfied with the Administration up to that date—into the agitation.

Lord L ug a rd asked what were the names of the half-dozen men to whom Sir Jam es P a rr had referred. Were they all Nelsonites ? He understood that Nelson, Williams and Westbrook were involved.

Sir George R ic h a r d so n said that was so. Others he could think of at the moment were ™r> Smyth and Meredith—a half-caste merchant. There was also a gentleman named Baxter, who had withdrawn later. There was also a Mr. Cobcroft and a Mr. ICurkmeyer, who withdrew ^mediately they knew that the natives were going to be brought in with the Europeans °n political matters.

M. Mer lin asked w h eth er Sir George Richardson could give approximate figures for 10 populations of Upolu and Savai’i respectively.

Sir George R ic h a r d so n replied that the population of Upolu was about 24,000 and that 01 Savai’i, 13,000. — i6

M. M e r l in asked how many Europeans there were in Upolu.

Sir George R ic h a r d s o n replied that nearly all the Europeans were in Upolu, w ith the exception of a few traders around Savai’i. Nearly all the Europeans lived in Apia, which was a political centre.

M. M e r l in asked whether Sir George Richardson could give the number of chiefs that had been expelled from the place where they resided previous to and after the institution of the Mau.

Sir George R ic h a r d so n said that, at the commencement of the Mau, there were in opera­ tion seven cases of natives who had been removed to other villages for offences. They might or might not have been chiefs. He was not sure. Those removed before the Mau had all been moved at the request of the natives themselves.

M. Me r l in asked how many chiefs had been expelled after the institution of the Mau.

Sir George R ic h a r d so n said that, from the commencement of the Mau up to June, nine months afterwards, when the Minister had made his visit, eight chiefs were ordered to remain in their villages, and from June up to the present time eight, he thought, had been moved to other villages.

M. Me r l in asked how many had been deprived of their titles.

Sir George R ic h a r d so n replied that these details were given quite clearly on page 484 of the report.

M. R a p pa r d wished to make a general observation which, he thought, would help Sir James Parr and General Richardson to understand the aim of the Commission. The Chairman has said that the Commission was particularly interested in the real causes of the unrest, and Sir James Parr had answered that the real cause, in the opinion of the mandatory Power, was the inordinate ambition of three men. It was obvious that the Commission could not let the matter rest there. He did not suppose that there was a colony or a country in the world where three men having inordinate ambitions were not to be found, but fortunately most countries were in a state of order, if not of general contentment. Therefore, the ambition of these three men, which, he thought, was clear to the mind of any reader of all the documents, must have acted on a general situation which allowed for the outbreak of unrest and, for this reason, the questions of the Commission might seem tedious and pedantic. Sitting at Geneva, thousands of miles away, it was extremely difficult to visualise the general temper of the popu­ lation, and it was only by detailed questions that the Commission could supply those elements which were absolutely indispensable. The fact that the Commission was inquisitive about these details did not at all imply that it disregarded the inordinate ambition of those three men. This ambition was obvious. But as a cause for upsetting order in two islands inhabited by some 40,000 natives it hardly seemed sufficient.

M. P ala cio s said that the question he wished to ask was inspired by the same thoughts as that of M. Rappard. He noted that, during this agitation, the cry “ Samoa for the Samoans ” had been raised. He would like to know whether that cry and that movement had played any important part in the agitation and whether, in those parts of Samoa which were not under the control of a mandatory Power, the cry “Samoa for the Samoans” had ever been raised.

Sir ‘James P a r r said that he thought perhaps he could best meet the desires of the Com­ mission by inviting it to question him and General Richardson. He suggested, with all respect, that it was impossible for him to make a connected and useful statement if he were to be continually interrupted by questions. He had hoped to give the Commission a reasoned state­ ment on the way in which an unfortunate state of affairs had arisen. His Government’s view was that the people to whom he had referred were responsible, and he must bring that out. He had intended afterwards to show how the ambition of these few white people had expressed itself in certain actions and in an enormous propaganda with the natives. M. Rappard should wait to hear that. He did not wish, however, to continue if the Commission desired to shorten the proceedings. The Commission had apparently read the report, and he would be very glad indeed to answer any questions which might throw light upon the matter. He would, however, simply refer the Commission to the report, which was a very complete document. The Ch a ir m a n recognised that there must be order in the discussion and, before it was continued, he would ask his colleagues whether any of them had any other questions to pat on the same lines as those which had just been asked by M. Palacios and M. Rappard. The Commission had to discover what factors, if any, had served as a cause or a pretext for the agitation. Would Sir James Parr first reply to the question raised by M. Palacios as to whether the “ Samoa for the Samoans ” movement had been such a reason or pretext ? Sir Jam es PaRR said that, in his view, and he thought his colleague would agree with him, the cry “ Samoa for the Samoans ”, which was now the definite policy of the Mau, is a matter of the present day—quite a recent matter. Before the natives had been drawn into consulta­ tions and public meetings with the whites, the Samoans had had no idea whatever of raising the d e m a n d for self-government. This agitation was a matter of evolution. It had reached tc stage of a demand for self-government comparatively recently, and was now the main deman of a number of the disaffected Samoans. - i 7 -

M. P alacios asked whether there had been any “ Samoa for the Samoans ” movement in the other parts of Samoa which were under other Powers, or was that cry entirely confined to the territory under mandate.

Sir George R ic h a r d so n said that, in American Samoa, there was also a Mau. These two organisations were now communicating one with the other. The apparent object of the Mau in Tutuila, in American Samoa, was to alter the present form of government, to have a civil government instead of a naval station. He had heard it said th at there was some tru th in the statement that they also were agitating to govern themselves, but he could not prove it. The idea of “ Samoa for the Samoans ” was a mistaken idea which might have arisen partly from what he had taught the Faipules. He had taught them that the Administration was training them to look after their own affairs, so that some day, far distant, they might be able to play their full part in controlling their own affairs. The agitators had deliberately misinter­ preted his words, and were using the term “ Samoa for the Samoans

Lord L u g a rd asked whether the American Mau had been in existence long before the creation of the Mau in the mandated territory, or whether it had arisen afterwards. Secondly, he did not understand how the Samoans could imagine that they would get more self-govern- ment by abolishing the Fono and being represented in the Legislative Council. It seemed to him that the self-government which was being instituted by the Administration in the Fono was more satisfactory than any representation by one or two members in the Legislative Council could have been.

Sir George R ic h a r d so n said that, as regards Lord Lugard’s first question, there had been incipient trouble in American Samoa for many years, approximately ten years, and there had been, during that time, a small organisation termed the Mau. In the first instance, the American authorities had sent out warships, and had given authority for the Commander to hold an enquiry. The Governor of American Samoa was apparently so worried that he had committed suicide before the arrival of the warships. An enquiry was held and a half-caste was found to have been responsible for stirring up the trouble. He was put on the warship and deported. In answer to the second question, it was true that the Faipules and the natives all over Samoa realised that they had full representation in the Fono of Faipules. Up to the time of the Europeans’interference, they had repeatedly expressed to him their warm approval of their present system of representation, and had repeatedly told him that they wished to have their own Fono of Faipules to deal with their own affairs according to their own customs and in their own way rather than to have representation on the Legislative Council. Some of the Samoan chiefs had heard that one of the representatives on the Legislative Council, a European, had said : “ If we get Samoans on this Legislative Council, we ought ultimately to be able to dispense with the Fono of Faipules This agitation to have representation on the Legislative Council had originated entirely with the Europeans. It had not been asked for by the Samoans, and those who were articulate and thoroughly understood what the Administration was trying to do, such as the Faipules and Government officials, had not wished to change the existing system in any way. He was satisfied that it was the only system which was suited to the present development of the native.

M. R a ppa r d recalled that, in the course of the debate in 1923, Sir James Parr, who was then, he understood, Minister of Education, in introducing the Bill concerning the Legislative Council is Western Samoa, had declared that it was the intention of theGovernment to allow the Samoans to elect two of their own number to the legislature. He understood that this declara­ tion had been approved by the Cabinet as a whole, but had not yet been put into execution. He would like to know whether this was correct and whether there was anything in the suggestion that this statement, which was looked upon as an unfulfilled promise by New Zealand, might have had something to do with the dissatisfaction of the natives.

Sir James P a r r said that, in 1923, he had not been the Minister in charge of these islands. He had been Minister of Education in the Lower House. The Minister in charge had been Sir Francis Bell, who was in the Upper House. The Bill in question had, of course, to be introduced in the Lower House, and he had been requested to take it on a brief put in front of him. The Bill did not provide, and the Act itself did not provide specifically, for the representation of the Samoans on the Legislative Council. H he remembered rightly, the Act merely provided that, by Order in Council, individuals— it did not mention Samoans at all, but the widest possible term was employed—might be appointed. M. Rappard had asked for an explanation of a remark made by Sir James Parr which would have to be read in conjunction with the whole context. His recollection of the event was as follows : At the time in question, General Richardson had been practically the promoter of the measure to give elective representation on a body the members of which had hitherto been nominated. Sir James Parr’s papers stated that it was the opinion of General Richardson—and he so stated it to the House—that an experiment might be tried not only of having three elected whites on the Legislative Council, but two Samoans also.

M. R a ppa rd ask ed if they were to be elected members.

Sir James P a r r replied in the affirmative. Such were the instructions he had received rom the Department which had no doubt heard from General Richardson on the point. He - IS — would now ask his colleague to explain why what had certainly been intended by the Depart­ ment at that time (otherwise he would have had no reason for stating it) had not been carried out and why the two Samoans were not elected. This point was important as showing what had been in the mind of the Department and of General Richardson at the time, and he thought that some explanation was due to the Commission of what had taken place. In conclusion, Sir James Parr wished to say that the whole tenor of his speech had been to the effect th at this was an experiment in partial self-government of a very tentative character ; it was one which had not been made, so far as he was aware, in any other colony, and the details of it must be worked out by the Administrator on the spot. There was one sentence in the speech he had made which struck him as quite apposite but it was conveniently forgotten by critics. In his speech he said : “ I am sure the House to-day recognises that its proper relationship and the proper relationship of our Government to the natives of Samoa is one of guardianship. In the implications of the mandate, they are under the care and tutelage of New Zealand. Repre­ sentative or parliamentary government, under these circumstances, is entirely out of the question.”

M. R a p pa r d asked Sir James Parr to be good enough to quote the passage in which he was alleged to have announced the policy of the Government to allow Samoans to be elected. Sir Jam es P a r r quoted the following passage : “ It has been well said that these people will have to be educated up to a proper appre­ ciation of the duties and responsibilities of government before one could reasonably consider giving them representative or parliamentary institutions.” M. R a p pa r d pointed out that this was a negative statement.

Sir Jam es P a r r agreed. He wondered, however, why people who had made use of a sentence he had employed elsewhere did not also quote the above. W hat had been dominantly in his mind had been that these natives were under a state of guardianship.

M. R a ppa r d thought the accredited representative would understand that he (M. Rappard) did not look upon this as a pledge given by the Government of New Zealand which had been unfulfilled. He was simply trying to establish whether a statement which had not been quoted, but which had been referred to and according to which Sir James Parr had announced the intention of th e New Zealand Government not to establish representative institutions, but to give the Samoans the right to elect two of their number as members of the Legislative Council, had in fact been made, and if that statement had been used by the opponents of the Administration to stir up discontent.

Sir Jam es P a r r did not for a moment dispute the position. The sentence to which M. Rappard had referred was the following : “ Power is sought for certain representatives to be elected by the Samoan people and the white people on the islands Certainly he had made the suggestion of Samoan representation. He thought it important that that point should be cleared up, and General Richardson could do this. He would ask his colleague to tell the Commission what had occurred later to change the instructions then given.

Sir George R ic h a r d so n said that, when he went to Samoa, he did not know a great deal about Samoan native administration, but he knew it was his duty to endeavour to train the native chiefs to govern themselves in accordance with the mandate, and he had worked very hard in that direction. Knowing that in Fiji and some other territories natives were represented on a Legislative Council and that Europeans elected their members, he had actually written to the Minister and suggested that provision should be made for elected European members in Samoa and, if possible, that natives should be put on the Council. By this means he would be saved the responsibility of nominating Europeans. The Act to which Sir James Parr had referred was passed by the New Zealand Parliament, and its provisions were so wide that, if it had been possible, he could have appointed at least two native members on the Legislative Council. He had attended the Fono of Faipules and had found the men keen and anxious to learn and making progress in the way of governing and con­ trolling their own affairs. He had proposed to them that two of them should sit on w hat he had called the Mixed Council. He himself had been in favour of this. To his surprise, the natives had not readily responded ; they seemed to be suspicious of something, and he had then asked them to think it over and let him know their answer at the next half-yearly Fono. He had not known at that time that the chiefs were very jealous of each other ; in fact, jealousy between the chiefs was one of the causes that was operating in the political trouble to-day. As there were 3,000 chiefs among 9,000 adults, it would be understood how difficult it was to please everybody under such conditions. When the Faipules assembled again and gave him their answer it was in the negative. They said : “ We do not want to go on the Legislative Council ; we desire only our o w n Fono, which will enable us better to control our own affairs ”. Evidence was given by a very intelligent chief named Toelupe which was very clear on that point (page 285 of the report of the Roya Commission). When he discussed the matter with the Faipules, he realised that the proposa was premature and that it would not be helpful to put native members on this Council, an above all that two natives could not be found who would efficiently represent and satisfy a the different political parties in Samoa. There was told a story in Samoa to-day about that very popular Governor, Dr. Solf. Dr. Solf went to an institution of the Missionary Society and offered a trophy to be given to the best student. There were about 120 students and he said : “ I will leave it to you to elect the best student ; you will carry out your own elections.” The election was held, and when the voting papers were taken out of the box there were 120 names on them. The Faipules at the present time did not want representation on the Council, and he was sure, having a full knowledge of the conditions in Samoa, that the present system, as referred to by Lord Lugard, was the proper system now and would be for some years. That system would better teach the natives and help them to look after their own affairs, and ultimately to stand alone in the way that the Mandates Commission of the League of Nations wished, than the putting of two members on the Legislative Council. The agitators, however, had seen in this an appeal to the vanity of other chiefs, and something which could be used as criticism against the Government. They thus caused suspicion and unrest amongst the natives who did not understand, but merely said : “ The present system is wrong ; we ought to have members on the Legislative Council The natives generally did not want it.

Sir Jam es P a r r wished to ask General Richardson whether he had made known, after his consultation with the Faipules, the serious objections that had been raised to his proposal to elect Samoans to the Council, whether it had been made public property in Samoa, as well as his change of mind on the point subsequent to Sir James Parr’s speech in Parliament.

Sir George R ic h a r d so n said that the Fono of Faipules was a very real and a very good institution with a formal system of working. The Fonos brought to him all the matters with which they dealt, they were put in the form of a resolution, and whatever was decided in each case was subsequently made the subject of a circular which was sent round to every district in Samoa. The Fono knew the decisions regarding this matter.

Sir Jam es P a r r understood, then, that the whole of the proceedings with regard to this election of Samoans were known.

Sir George R ic h a r d so n replied in the affirmative. They had been circulated in Samoa. In his next annual report, he had included a record of the complete proceedings of a Fono of Faipules for the information of the Commission.

Sir Jam es P a r r remarked that he had been quite justified in what he had said in Parlia­ ment. The Commission would have seen that the Administrator changed his mind afterwards.

M. R a p pa r d wished to clear up one point, not as an explanation of any justified discontent that might exist, but as an explanation of the handle which it might have given to interested agitators. He referred to a passage in the Parliam entary debate to which reference was made by Mr. Holland, the author of a pamphlet. Sir James Parr, in the course of a debate, was interrupted by Mr. Veitch, who asked : “ Are they Samoans ? ” Sir James Parr had replied : “ No. The Samoans put their views through to the Council of Faipules. I am obliged to the hon. gentleman for his interjection because it reminds me of the fact that we propose now to put on this Council two Samoans to be elected by the Samoans themselves, though that is rather ahead of my story. For the first time, the principle of election to the Council is recognised. It is proposed that the Governor-General should have power to say that these unofficial members shall be elected—two being Samoans and three being civilian Europeans in Samoa.”

M. Rappard understood that Mr. Holland, who had participated in the debate, was the author of this pamphlet and was a member, he supposed, of the opposition. He would like to be quite clear on this point. In an agitation of this kind recourse was often had to unfair methods, and statements were taken out of their context. This was a method with which Administrators were familiar, and it was obvious that, in the course of the agitation, methods of that kind were adopted, and he supposed that there might be in this some explanation of the thirst for self-government that had, perhaps, been excited by reports unfairly spread regarding the declarations made on the plans of General Richardson. This was a point of some importance.

Sir George R ic h a r d so n agreed with M. Rappard. Unfortunately, Mr. Holland’s remarks and the remarks of other people had been translated into the vernacular and circulated amongst the Samoans, who had been led to believe that they were the authoritative views of the Govern­ ment of New Zealand, which was responsible for the welfare of the native. The circulation by the Mau of political speeches in New Zealand had done more harm in Samoa than anything else.

M. Van R e e s wished very warmly to thank Sir James Parr and Sir George Richardson tor the thorough explanations they had given yesterday and at the morning meeting. Never­ theless, those explanations did not make it possible for him to get a very clear idea of what c°uld have provoked the agitation in this small territory. With the object of discovering both rf kafic and immediate causes, he had read very carefully the report of the Royal Commisson. e wished to express his greatest admiration for the report, which had been extremely well Prepared and of which the impartiality was beyond question. It had been drawn up by persons the highest reputation both in New Zealand and elsewhere. He had, however, been struck, — 20 — when reading the report, by the fact that the two judges composing the Commission had confined themselves to examining the various complaints from the point of view of the legality of the actions of the Administrator. As soon as the legality of such actions had been established, the Royal Commission had concluded that the complaints were without founda­ tion, which seemed all the more surprising in that Judge MacCormick, one of the investigators, had had some colonial experience, since it had been said that he was familiar with the customs points of view and general mentality of the Maoris, who had been described as cousins of the Samoans. As a result, the actual or possible psychological effect on the Samoans of the measures adopted towards them, even though those measures might have been perfectly legal, did not appear to have been the subject of any special or enlightening examination. It was for this reason that he had asked the accredited representative at the beginning of the discussion to be good enough to explain the views of his Government as to the fundamental causes of so wide an agitation which had broken out in so small and peaceful a country. In reply to this request, it had been stated that the Government’s view was that the whites had four causes of discontent, which were the following : (i) Prohibition ; (2) The sale of copra by the Administrator ; (3) Extravagance of the Administration ; (4) The political ambitions of Mr. Nelson. This reply only partially cleared up the situation, for, as M. Rappard had so justly pointed out on the previous day, prohibition could not be considered as a real cause, since this measure, of which the natives had not disapproved, had first been applied in 1920. It might, from the time of its application, have been disliked by certain non-natives, but it did not seem that it could be said to have provoked the sudden outburst of agitation in 1926. M. Rappard had also very wisely added that the charges of extravagance appeared unfounded and were not believed by their authors. As regards the sale of copra by the Administrator, if the latter had adopted this policy, it was essentially in order to protect and favour the material interests of the natives. This policy could have affected only a small number of European traders, the principal of whom was Mr. Nelson. M. Van Rees quite realised that the action of the Administrator in this matter might have irritated certain traders because it threatened the future of their trade. It might, therefore, quite well have been one of the contributory causes of Mr. Nelson’s discontent, and it may have been the final reason which induced him to proceed to extremes and to give full rein to that political ambition which the accredited representative had said was one of the real main causes of the disturbance. Nevertheless, while retaining this point of view, M. Van Rees wished to look at these causes from another angle. In his view, the legality of certain measures adopted by the Administrator, while it could not be questioned, did not constitute the sole and final solution of the problem. He attached more importance to the application of those measures and their effect on the native mind. It was from this angle that he wished to examine what had happened, and to ask questions with this object. He did not wish Sir James Parr to think that the speaker did not accept what he said, when he had pointed out that Mr. Nelson had played a large part in the agitation. He felt sure that Mr. Nelson had played such a part, but he was not yet convinced that his action was the only fundamental cause of the agitation.

The Ch a irm a n wished to explain that everything said by the members of the Commission during the discussion was said on their personal responsibility. The statement made did not, for the moment, express the united views of the Commission, w hich w ould o n ly be set forth in the report to the Council. He would like to ask Sir George Richardson one or two questions which might, he thought, complete that asked by M. Van Rees and perhaps make it easier for Sir James Parr to reply. The points on which he would like information were as follows : First of all, Sir George Richardson had told the Commission th at he had not previously been a specialist in native affairs or had much experience of them. When Sir George went to Samoa, did he find a staff already there and already organised or did he take with him other staff ? Secondly, what had the relations between the Government and the traders previously been and what was the nature of the Government ? Was it a system of paternal government ? What were the relations between the traders and the natives ? Thirdly, the Fonos met twice a year, but, between the meetings of the Fonos, were the natives in direct touch with the officials or only through the traders ? In a word, during the first three years of Sir George’s administration, before any trouble had started, what had been the nature of the general relations of the Government and those under its authority ? Was the Government paternal or bureaucratic ? Lastly, in what way had Sir George become aware of the unrest ? Had he become aware of it suddenly, or were there gradual symptoms—complaints by the natives, grumbling on the part of the traders and so on ? Perhaps it would be better to postpone the answer to these questions until the afternoon meeting. — 21 —

FIFTEENTH MEETING

Held on Thursday, June 21st, 1928, at 4 p.m.

861. Western Samoa : Examination of the Report of the Royal Commission concerning the Administration of Western Samoa (continuation).

Sir James Parr, High Commissioner for New Zealand and Major-General Sir George Richardson, K.B.E., C.B., C.M.G., former Administrator of Western Samoa, came to the table of the Commission.

The Ch a ir m a n asked Sir James Parr and Sir George Richardson to be good enough to reply to the questions raised at the morning meeting by himself and M. Van Rees.

Character of the Report of the Royal Commission. Methods of the Agitation.

Sir Jam es P a r r spoke as follows : I feel that I cannot allow one or two matters raised by my friend M. Van Rees to pass unnoticed. I confess that I am a little dismayed at the view M. Van Rees takes of the Royal Commission. After paying it a compliment, M. Van Rees went on to say that practically all the Royal Commission had done was to find that the measures taken were legally justified and that all was for the best in the best possible world. I trust that is not quite the view taken by this Commission. It is my duty to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that my Government is of opinion that the Royal Commission’s report is the most valuable document th at the world has yet received with regard to the Samoan question. My Government believes that the Royal Commission has stated with accuracy the facts as they are ; it believes that the report gives the true story of the whole business and of the causes for it. I trust this Commission will find that the Royal Commission’s report is a testimony of impressive weight. I can assure M. Van Rees th a t it has had a considerable effect upon the public opinion of New Zealand and the world outside. I come now to the difficulty in which my friend finds himself. M. Van Rees finds it difficult to understand how it is that such a large body of natives have attached themselves to this non-co-operative organisation against the Administration, in view of the fact—which is not disputed—that they had in their Administrator a man who was genuinely sympathetic, a man whose main purpose was to assist and befriend the natives in every possible way, and whose measures for their copra business, for their health and education and moral good have earned the admiration of many people outside Samoa. Why, then, asks M. Van Rees, are these natives against the administration ? The answer, if I may attempt it, is this : First, we have to under­ stand the peculiar psychology and mental character of these Samoans ; there is no race quite like them. They are very simple and very changeable. They are easy prey for the agitator and they are most anxious to follow any new movement. In proof of that, on page xxvi of the report is given the evidence of Captain Bell when being examined by the lawyer. He was asked : “ Are the Samoans prone to follow in any new venture or new experiment ? ” He replied : “ Yes, if I started a Salvation Army movement here, there would not be a mission Native in the place. ” “ That is because of the novelty of the thing and because of the big drum ? ” “ Yes ” That is their exact disposition. They are very easily7 persuaded, prone to agitation and love a contest. You may say : Surely there has been some long-standing cause for their dis­ content, let us search for it. I join with you in the search and I confess that, with the facts before me, I am unable to discover any reason for disagreeing from the Royal Commission. The Royal Commission has stated positively that there was no unrest, no real discontent, among the natives before October 1926. I appreciate your desire to dig the earth before 1926 to see what is in the soil to cause the growth of trouble, but you dig to no purpose before that date. We have to accept this, I think, that, prior to October 1926, the natives were, on the whole, satisfied with the administration. Let us come, then, to that date. What took place then to upset their faith ? Well, an unheard-of thing took place. Nelson challenged the Administrator and won before the whole native population. Nelson and others said : “ We will hold a public meeting to which the Samoans will be invited, to which they will come and join with the whites, and they will discuss the politics of this country conjointly—native affairs and European affairs”. I do not know whether the Commission sufficiently appreciates that this was a breach of an unwritten law ^ ich exists in every territory of a character such as Samoa. When the natives and the uropeans come together like that, it always spells serious trouble, and sometimes war. t is discountenanced by every Colonial administration, because it means that the natives get into the hands of white wire-pullers. General Richardson learned for the first time through a newspaper that a public meeting Was be called shortly before he had welcomed Nelson back from a visit to Australia in a speech, and Nelson had replied in terms of the most flattering character with regard to the — 22 —

Administrator, praising his impartiality and fairness and his desire for the public welfare. At the same time, Nelson had resolved the week before to hold this public meeting, which he knew must be dead against the wishes and policy of the Administrator, because it began a campaign of propaganda among an easily swayed and ignorant people. That was the cause of the native trouble—propaganda, organised propaganda from Apia; it began in September and October 1926. You may take it that a systematic campaign of unsettling the simple Samoan was then begun by people well in a position to accomplish their object. They were all either married to Samoans or were half-castes. They had peculiar advantages in dealing with these people for the purpose of corrupting their minds. And they had unlimited funds.

What methods did they adopt ? A newspaper was created which circulated largely, containing untruthful statements about the Administration. There were forty or fifty trading stations which they were able to employ as centres for the dissemination of propaganda. In addition, they brought into the town thirty chiefs whose real grievance, I shall suggest to you, was that they were not Faipules themselves. They were jealous. They were anxious for power. These thirty chiefs were brought into Apia, the political centre, and for nine months hung about there, getting material from the whites—the “centre”—and disseminating that material throughout the length and breadth of the land by means of circulars, messengers, etc. An unceasing stream of propaganda against the Administration continued for nine months unchecked. There is the real cause of the mischief. In addition, all through the country, wherever there was a trading station, messages were conveyed to the natives indicating that the Administration was treating them unjustly, In a sentence, M. Van Rees, I would tell you that my honest opinion is that this powerful machine of intrigue had the effect of creating in the hearts of the people—up to th at time reasonably satisfied—the idea that they were a very ill-used race, that they were under a gross tyranny. This was not difficult. They follow the newest idea : they are the most fickle of people. A Samoan will hold an opinion to-day and renounce it to-morrow. He believes the latest story. The natives have never yet properly heard the other side. A large number of these people have never heard the truth. Few have heard of the Royal Commission’s report. Nor are all these adherents of the Mau voluntary and genuine adherents.

General Richardson can tell you an interesting story of the various methods of intimidation that were used to frighten these people and bring them in. What were some of the stories that were told to them ? They are multitudinous, but let me take one or two. They were discouraged from paying taxes. That is always a popular line. They were asked : “ Why pay a tax to the Government ? What is the Government doing for you ? Pay 5s. and join the Mau, which will obtain for you great benefits in the future. Trust the Mau. ” And again: “ When the Governor goes round the village on the malaga-visit and wants to talk to you, get away into the bush ; don’t talk to him. He may sway you. ” It was stated before the Royal Commission that this was deliberately done in order to prevent the Governor telling the natives the truth. The fear of certain people was that the native’s ideas about the Administra­ tion would immediately be corrected and put straight by the Governor. They were told that Mr. Nelson was going to the New Zealand Parliament, to get a “ victory for Samoa ” and that “ Samoa was going to be reborn as a nation Chiefs were got at by the prospect held out to them of a cheap trip to the New Zealand Parliament, and they in turn brought in their tribe or adherents. This propaganda machine went on for nine months unchecked. You will say to me, Mr. President, “ Why did you permit it ? Why were no steps taken ? ” I will ask General Richardson to give you the reasons for the course he followed. But let me continue my subject. General Richardson had, in September 1926, expressed a strong wish that these public meetings, which started at that time, should not take place. He sent his secretary to the second meeting with a document. The document practically said : “ I desire the whites not to mix with the natives ”. There was a long silence in this meeting and then Nelson said : “ We will go on with the meeting. Why should we submit to intimidation ? ” They continued the meeting against the wish of the Administrator. They defied the Administrator. You will say, “ Why was it permitted? ” The answer is that he had no legal power to stop it. He had no power to punish the whites—none. He had no power to punish the natives except by banishment, as it is called, which really means ordering a native to go from one place to another. General Richardson tells me this morning that, looking back on it now, in the light of what happened, perhaps he should have been stricter to get authority and police earlier in the gradual e v o lu tio n of the Mau.

By this time Mr. Nelson had become a most influential personage in the eyes of the natives. General Richardson, the Governor, was openly flouted before these people. During the first month it was a small thing, but a few hundreds saw it, and told their world, “ The Governor counts for nothing. Nelson is the big man ; he can do what he likes. He defies the Governor successfully.” General Richardson will tell you that, to some extent, he felt that his hands were tied. The Minister in charge of the Department had promised to come to Samoa to look into matters, and he felt, not unnaturally, that to take action against these people before the Minister came might prejudice the position. The Minister came to Samoa, and then the effect of the agitation was seen. Thousands of them were gathered in from all over the place. A deliberate demonstration was made, many being ignorant |of the purpose. They were having a — 23 — holiday in Samoa. They were given ribbons. They marched and re-marched in the little capital. They practically took possession of the town when the Minister came, and the attitude then of the Mau and of Mr. Nelson, before the Minister, was of a very truculent and defiant character. Mr. Nelson and his friends had found their power over these people. The Committee which had made all the trouble did not even call on the Minister when he came. He said : “ I have come to hear what you have to say ”. They refused, but they made this demonstration, and the thousands of natives, seeing this, and seeing the Governor flouted and the Administration defied, got the idea, quite naturally, that the Administration was powerless and of no use to them. Then followed a period of turbulent agitation. Mr. Nelson and his friends took the matter to the New Zealand Parliament. The Parliament initiated a political enquiry, an enquiry by a Committee. General Richardson found that the most mendacious statements were being made in New Zealand, he not being there to check them, and, further, that inaccurate propaganda was being spread through the world by Nelson and others. He therefore demanded a Royal Commission. The Royal Commission sat and heard the views of three hundred people, and found (briefly put) that there was no just cause or reason for this agitation. I want you, if you will, to understand that the agitation had been a lengthy process of evolution. At the first meeting, very little was said about native affairs. The matter grew and grew, until now, through the success that has been allowed to the movement, the ambition of the native is to cast off New Zealand and the mandate, and institute Samoa for the Samoans. Such is their view now, but it was not so in the early stages. I do not know whether I convey clearly to your minds the extraordinary nature of these people, their unusual psychology. They differ from all other natives. They have always been easily malleable by the man on the beach. Trouble arose in the consular days in the same way, because the whites began to interfere in native business. There was trouble in the German period. Dr. Solf had trouble with the natives for the same reason, the whites interfering with the natives, and to-day, alas ! we are not immune. I hope I have said sufficient to indicate that, in the view of my Government, first there was no real discontent before Nelson and his friends started this propaganda movement and, secondly, the discontent among the natives to-day had been caused entirely by false and cunning propaganda operating upon the minds of a very simple and credulous people. Their hearts are not in the Mau movement—I speak of a large number—they are intimidated. I believe that the originators, as far as the natives are concerned, those thirty chiefs, were influenced by the motive we spoke of to-day—jealousy of the Faipules. They wanted a job, they wanted an office. The idea of holding office appeals to the vanity of the Samoan chief. The agitators said, “ Well, you may get an office in this way ”. That started the movement which has spread until to-day it has extended out of all proportion to its beginnings. I do not know if you would care to hear General Sir George Richardson’s view on this aspect of the m atter. I shall not feel quite satisfied unless you do so, as he knows all the circumstances.

Sir George R ic h a r d s o n . — You have been told very clearly by Sir James Parr how this movement evolved, but it is difficult to understand why so many natives associated themselves with it, in view of the fact that they were, up to the time of the combined public meeting arranged by the European Committee, thoroughly satisfied and had no complaints. In the first place, the native ringleaders—the chiefs that were drawn together as a committee by Mr. Nelson and his colleagues—had an idea that they were going to get a free trip to New Zealand. Naturally, that encouraged them to work hard, and they forced their own people to join with them and to contribute funds. Secondly, the movement was a new one ; it gave interest and excitement to the simple native people who have not very much with which to occupy their time. It gave them opportunities for their beloved journeys or malagas round the island and to Apia, with the consequent feasts and Fonos. Further, they stated they were told that they would be free from observing the various laws of the Administration, such as collecting the rhinoceros or coconut beetle, which involves half-a-day’s work per week. They were also told they need not clean their villages or clean their plantations or do other work which was regulated for their own good. They were also led to believe that they would not have to pay the Government tax, but only a tax to the Mau of five shillings for a Taulelea (i.e., a man without a title) and ten shillings ior a chief. They were told—and they apparently saw—that the Government would not punish them for joining the Mau. They had nothing to lose and everything to gain. Furthermore, and this was brought out in evidence (page 360), they saw that the real offenders were not punished and that the Government did nothing to stop propaganda in the vernacular in the Samoa Guardian instituted by Mr. Nelson. The big demonstration organised by Mr. Nelson’s committee -to impress the Minister appealed to them. They thought that those who belonged the Mau belonged to the bigger organisation. Then, later, intimidation was employed. Those in a village who did not belong to this au organisation found that they were not invited to certain feasts ; they were not allowed to — 24 —

go into certain Fonos to take their part in title cases. This was part of the scheme of the Com­ mittee to force a large number of natives to join with them. They did not even receive a certain share of communal foods. I have a document from a native telling me the story of how he and others were actually threatened with banishment by the Mau if they did not join, and they were also threatened with being deprived of their titles. There is one case of a loyal native having his coconut trees—nearly a hundred of them —cut down because he said he remained loyal to the Government and would not join this organisation. There is another case of a chief having his life threatened because he said he was determined to be loyal to the Government. These and many other cases of intimidation caused the native to associate himself with the movement. He was not going to put up with inconvenience of that kind, when, by joining the Mau, he was with his brothers. In the mind of the average native the Mau was all right and good fun. Such are some of the causes that have contributed towards the growth of the Mau.

Sir Jam es P a r r . — Sir George Richardson has told me something in conversation which I think you ought to know. I asked him just now : " What is the attitude of these people ? Are they vicious ? So far as the general body of them is concerned, are they inclined to use force or violence ? ” His answer is interesting, and I should like you to hear it.

Sir George R ic h a r d s o n . — I should look upon the majority of the Samoans in the Mau as children who have joined this movement and enjoy it. They are not vicious towards the Government. They do not display any great hostility, except that a few of the chiefs are really most anxious “ to win ” as they call it. As for the great majority of them, their hearts are not in it. They know it is wrong. Although many are in the movement, they are not really hostile in any way to the Administration. Just before I left, some of the natives went to the Secretary for Native Affairs to get a passport to go to Tutuila. We allow these natives to travel if they have paid their tax. The Secretary replied : " Yes, you can go, but you have not paid your tax yet ”. “ Oh, yes ”, replied one of the men, " we have ; we have paid ours to the Mau ”. That will explain the attitude of the majority of them to-day. Just before leaving, I sent for one of the ringleaders, as mentioned in the report, a native chief, and asked him why he had put himself in opposition to myself and the Administration, at which he shed tears, saying he was very sorry, but he was in the Mau and according to Samoan custom he could not get out of it until it was ended. I replied : " How can we end it then ? ” He answered : “ You could end it to-morrow if you could make all the chiefs Faipules”. He said : “ They will hang on until they get an answer from the League of Nations They had been told that.

M. V a n R e e s , replying to the first part of the speech of Sir James Parr which had been addressed in particular to himself, said that he had spoken with a full consciousness of his responsibility as a member of the Mandates Commission. He had been the first to recognise the great value of the judges of the Royal Commission and of the work they have done, as he had been the first to recognise the great qualities and good intentions of the Administrator of Samoa. He could not, however, forget that the Permanent Mandates Commission had a duty to perform and that as a member he had to share in that duty. It was just because of the interest he took in the fulfilment of this duty that he had been a little disappointed when reading the report of the Royal Commission. His disappointment was due to the exclusive manner in which the complaints, above alb those of the natives, had been examined. He had hoped that the Royal Commission would have examined the measures taken by the Administration, not only from the legal point of view, but also from another point of view which could not fail particularly to interest the Mandates Commission. The absence of illegality was not always sufficient to justify the action of a colonial administration. Associated with the legality of this action was its psychological effect on the native mentality, which was quite different from that of Western populations. It was this aspect of the problem to which the Royal Commission did not appear to have attached the importance it deserved. M. Van Rees did not consider it necessary to insist on this point, which, moreover, did not require an explanation for anyone who was familiar with the mentality of the native. He did not think it necessary, therefore, to do more, for the moment, than thank Sir James Parr and Sir George Richardson for the supplementary information they had been good enough to give.

Officials: Relations between the Administrator, the Traders and the Samoans.

The Ch a irm a n asked Sir George Richardson to be good enough to reply to the questions which had been put to him at the end of the previous meeting.

Sir George R ic h a r d s o n . — T he first question put to me concerned the staff of Western Samoa. The staff there is permanent and does not change with the Administrators. My previous experience w ith natives was limited to Maoris and to Nieue Islanders, of which I knew something. I had experience of them also in the war, but I had no previous experience oi — 25

Samoans, and I very quickly found on arrival in the territory that they were very different. I therefore maintained an entirely open mind.

There was one principle instilled into me from a study of Lord Lugard's works and those of other administrators, namely, that it was my duty to govern these people as far as possible through their chiefs and their native authorities. My native staff was controlled by a very exceptional and able man, who had had experience in Samoa for nineteen years as a missionary. He was highly respected by everyone and the natives had full confidence in him. I set to work to study the Samoans and their language, and I attempted to make no changes in Native Administration until I had been one year in the country and learned from the head of the native staff and the Faipules what were the true needs of the native race. I made no change in their customs ; in fact, no change whatever has been made in any native customs during my regime except at the request of the natives themselves. The staff was efficient, but, as in nearly every case, there were individuals who were not as efficient as others', and during my time there I had to dispense with the services of several. I have been very strict in regard to the officials of the native department, realising that they must be sympathetic, firm and possess special qualifications for dealing with natives. It is very difficult to get a complete native staff possessing those qualities, but I wish to say that the native staff was well served by Mr. Griffin and his assistants when I went to Samoa.

The local staff is appointed by the Administrator. If a senior officer, head of a department, or a special official is required and cannot be obtained locally, the Administrator applies to New Zealand and he is selected by the Government. The policy I adopted was to help as far as possible the large number of half-caste Europeans to get employment in the Government service. A serious problem is developing in Samoa—the problem of knowing what is going to be the outlet and the future for the large number of half-caste boys there.

The next question asked me concerned the traders. The relationship between the Adminis­ tration and the traders, right up to the time of this political agitation, has been very good indeed. W hen I went around the islands on m y official visits, they called on me, I held confe­ rences with them, talked freely, and they put matters before me. They frequently wrote to me and presented various problems. It should be remembered that these traders are nearly all employees only of merchants in Apia. This fact has been brought out in the evidence of the Royal Commission, where it is shown that the traders of Nelson & Co. were used to circulate documents and to collect funds for the Mau. A few of these traders do endeavour to interfere in native affairs. I had one case, before the present trouble arose, of a trader who was endeavouring to get the natives to form an organisation which would involve them selling all their copra to him and not to any other trader ; in other words, to mortgage their crops. I moved that trader to another district, or ordered that he be moved. During the period of the Mau, there have been cases of traders interfering with native affairs, to which I took great exception. The Faipules have told me that the traders blame the Government for everything which displeases the natives. If the price of their lava-lava, their oil, their fishing gear, or other things they require appears to be too high, the trader tells them it is because of the Government. Therefore I would say that the traders do not all co-operate with the Government.

The next question is as follows : Do the natives readily approach the Administration direct or do they go through the traders ? The answer is that they always go to the Native Office, they look upon the Secretary of Native Affairs as a father, and in many cases insist on seeing the Administrator. They are a peculiar people in that they always want to get the decision from the highest authority : they want to see the Governor ; and a good deal of my time has been taken up in interviews and in settling native troubles. Since the Mau started, it has been the policy to tell the natives not to come, in any circumstances, to the Native Office or to the Administrator. I have asked the reason for this, and the answer has been (i) that those members in the Mau would tell the Administrator too much of what they were being told by the European Committee and (2) that the Administrator would talk them over and show them that they were wrong.

I wish to assure you, however, that they have always had the fullest confidence in the Administrator and in the Secretary of Native Affairs as their champions in defending their rights. Since I have learnt the language, it has been most difficult for me to make the native chiefs and others act constitutionally and go to their Secretary of Native Affairs. They would come to Government House and insist on seeing me personally, because they knew I understood them, and that, in itself, will prove that our Government was a paternal one. I would say that it could not be more so.

M. P alacio s had been very interested to hear the reply of General Pâchardson to the Chairman’s question with regard to the staff of officials. He would like to ask a question concerning a very detailed allegation made in a petition and which, in his view, called for a reply. The Commission had been told that one of the officials occupied a position of trust. Mr. Griffin appeared, from the petition, to have been rather sharply criticised. It had been said, in fact, that the whites were either pro-Griffin or anti-Griffin and that there was a keen difference of opinion between the two factions. Certain allegations had been made against that same official on the ground that he had given protection to some undesirable persons. — 20 —

The petition had been sent by Mr. Newton Rowe. Had Sir George Richardson any more information to give with regard to what was said in that petition ?

Sir George R ic h a r d so n said that the information he had given in his report concerning Mr. Rowe represented the position exactly. He had no further information to give. It was always an unpleasant duty for an Administrator to dismiss or dispense with the services of any official. No Administrator would do so unless it were absolutely necessary in the interests of the natives or the country, because he knew only too well that in the majority of cases that person would immediately create some political trouble and make difficulties for the Adminis­ tration and the Government. On all occasions when it had been necessary to dispense with the services of an official, he had been sorry to have to do so, and he had been sorry in the case of Mr. Rowe, but the situation had necessitated it. He had had his critics, because it had been necessary, in the course of duty, to punish people, and when people were punished they were dissatisfied—at any rate, that was so in Samoa.

M. P a la cio s asked whether Bigg-Wither was actually a protégé of Mr. Griffin’s. Had there been any favouritism regarding him ? M. Palacios referred in this connection to paragraph 7 of the observations of Wellington dated Septem ber 13th, 1927.

Sir George R ic h a r d so n replied in the negative. He would tell the Commission the story of Bigg-Wither if it wished, but it could rest assured that he had been protected by nobody.

Local Banishments: Maintenance of Authority Ordinances.

Lord L ug a rd wished to point out that the concern of the Commission was primarily with the mandatory Power, and only in a secondary sense with the agent on the spot. He thought his colleagues would agree with him, after what had been already said in the Commission, that they were fully satisfied that the mandatory Power had done everything possible to ascertain the rights and wrongs of the trouble. It had appointed two judges in order to raise the matter out of any party politics, and had sent General Richardson to answer any further questions by the Commission. Up to that point he, at any rate, did not feel that the mandatory Power could have done anything more. The Royal Commission, however, had chiefly been concerned with investigating the local conditions and the actions of the Administrator, and so on, whereas the Commission regarded the matter from rather a wider point of view. He would like to know whether any of the Ordinances enacted by the Administrator and approved by the mandatory Power had been likely to give rise to any unrest. The laws prescribed a maximum penalty for an offence against the Ordinance, but that maximum penalty was very seldom inflicted. Had there been any cases in which a penalty had been inflicted which was inexpedient at a time of such crisis ?

Sir Jam es P a r r asked Lord Lugard whether he referred to the Ordinances made by the Legislative Council and the Administrator or to the Ordinances generally ?

Lord L u g a rd said he referred to the Ordinances passed prior to the actual time of crisis. He knew that, in time of crisis, very special measures might have been enacted to suppress any dangerous occurrence. He referred, however, to the Ordinances prior to that date. Had there been in any of the Ordinances approved by the mandatory Power anything which was likely to cause unrest and smouldering trouble ?

Sir Jam es P a r r asked Sir George Richardson to reply to that question. He wished merely to say that he thought the Royal Commission had enquired quite exhaustively into any com­ plaints that were made by the natives with regard to Ordinances, and had found that there had been no serious dissatisfaction with regard to them.

Sir George R ic h a r d so n said that the Royal Commission’s report stated definitely that no evidence was submitted of any dissatisfaction prior to the Mau. He could speak quite candidly —there had been no dissatisfaction. One Ordinance had been brought into the limelight very much since the Mau started—namely, the Ordinance dealing with so-called banishments. That Ordinance had been in vogue during the German regime. It had been found necessary to code it under the British regime, and it was nothing more or less than a code of similar laws or ordi­ nances in other native territories, but unfortunately it was designated “ banishment ” instead of—in the case of the British Ordinances—the " removal ’’ of a native from one district to another. He could assure the Chairman and members of this Commission that there had been no dissatisfaction with regard to that Ordinance prior to the Mau. It had been exercised very carefully, and he, together with Mr. Griffin, had used their influence to bring about reconciliation between natives who had been temporarily sent away. At the time of the Mau, there had been only seven current cases of natives who had been tem po­ rarily moved under that Ordinance and they would probably have been pardoned or sent back within a very short time. That was a small number, considering the population of 40,000 a n d the customs of the Samoans, who looked upon this punishment as the only punishment that they could understand, and the correct one to give for causing disturbances in native villages or trouble in families. — 27 —

Sir Jam es P a r r wished in this connection to point out to Lord Lugard that the Royal Commission dealt very exhaustively with this question on pages xxxv to xl of the report. It had come to the conclusion that the orders, both before the Man and after, had been regularly made after a proper investigation and a report by a competent quasi-tribunal, before which the person against whom proceedings had been taken was able to present his case, and after the report had been personally considered by the Administrator. As regards the question whether the Royal Commission was of opinion that this power to order a native by way .of banishment to go back to his village or to go to some part of the island ought still to be retained, its view was given on page xliii of the report : " At the enquiry there was no demand on the part of the Samoans that this power should be repealed. As we have said, it is incorporated in the customs and usages of Samoans, and even in recent years it has been on many occasions exercised on their application. ”

Lord L u g a rd said he had not had in mind any particular Ordinance and certainly not the Banishment Ordinance. He had asked quite generally whether the Administrator thought that any of the Ordinances might have given rise to discontent among the natives.

Sir Jam es P arr said he had emphasised the Banishment Ordinance because it was really the one about which much had been said.

M. V an R e e s asked whether reference was being made to the 1922 Ordinance.

Sir George R ic h a r d so n replied in the affirmative.

M. V an R e e s asked why that Ordinance had been promulgated in 1922. H ad any events occurred which called for its promulgation ?

Sir George R ic h a r d so n replied that, in the years 1921 and 1922, the German laws, many of which had been made in the form of proclamations, were coded as Ordinances. This proclamation had been in force, and was being acted upon, but it had not been codec! into an Ordinance, and in 1922 that Ordinance had been passed in the ordinary way, just as many other Ordinances had been, which were merely translations of the German laws with slight modifications.

M. V an R e e s , referring to page xxxvi of the report of the Royal Commission, wished to know whether the seven persons banished before the Mau and the fifteen after the Mau had been chiefs or simple natives.

Sir George R ic h a r d so n could not say whether they were all chiefs. He would suggest there were about half-and-half. He could not tell from the names.

M. V an R e e s asked whether the fifty-nine persons whose titles had been taken away were all chiefs.

Sir George R ic h a r d so n replied that they would be Matais, but of the fifty-nine referred to on page 484 of the report only a very few had had their titles removed.

M. V an R e e s understood that the Matais were regarded as chiefs.

Sir George R ic h a r d so n said that was so, but all chiefs were Matais, i.e., heads of families. All heads of families were Matais, whether they were important or only minor chiefs.

M. V an R e e s asked whether they were only heads of families, or whether they were considered to be chiefs of a higher status.

Sir George R ic h a r d s o n replied that all were heads of families, some chiefs of high rank and others ordinary Matais. He pointed out that on page 484 was given a list of all the so-called banishments after the Mau, nearly all of which were merely cases of ordering natives to go home ; yet they had had to be called banishments under the law.

Sir Ja m es P a r r remarked that perhaps home was a prison !

Sir George R ic h a r d so n said he could not even send the agitators back to their villages without invoking this Ordinance, as he had had to act in a constitutional way in accordance with the law.

M. V an R e e s wished to draw attention to the Maintenance of Authority in Native Affairs Ordinance 1927, Article 3 of which read as follows :

“ 3. Every person is guilty of an offence and liable on conviction to a fine not exceed­ ing £100 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year who speaks any words or does any act calculated or likely to undermine the authority of or to excite disaffection against any native authority. ” — 28 —

Article 4 read as follows : “ 4. Every person is guilty of an offence and liable on conviction to a fine not exceed­ ing £100 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year who originates, repeats or publishes any false rumour or makes, repeats or publishes any false report or misleading statement, if such rumour, report or statement is of a nature calculated or likely : “ (a) To undermine the authority of or to excite disaffection against any native authority ; or “ (b) To undermine the authority of or to excite disaffection against the Government of Samoa among the Samoan inhabitants of the territory of Western Samoa or any section of such inhabitants, if in either case such person knew or reasonably might have known that such rumour, report or statement was of such a nature. It shall be no defence to a charge under this clause that the person charged did not know such rumour or report to be false or did not know or intend such statement to be misleading.” He would like to know why the Administrator had thought it necessary to issue such a severe Ordinance.

Sir George R ic h a r d so n said that, at the time th a t the Ordinance had been introduced, propaganda was being spread about the island from the Committee of the Mau in Apia, giving false information about the Government and undermining the authority of the Faipules, who, up to the time of the formation of the Mau, had been doing splendid work and maintaining order in the territory. This false information had been doing a great deal of harm. He had asked his chief judge to look up the laws of other native territories and to ascertain if it would be possible to introduce an Ordinance to deal with the situation. He had found that in other native territories of the British Empire an Ordinance existed which was practically the same as the present one, which he had drafted, and which, he thought, met the situation. He had sent it to the New Zealand Government and had asked for its authority to pass it in the Legislative Council. The situation had been such that the Ordinance was an absolute necessity and, but for the difficulties in carrying out the law owing to the attitude of the Mau, there would have been some persons punished under it.

M. R a ppa r d asked what would have happened but for the operations of the Mau.

Sir George R ic h a r d so n explained that the police had been unable to function and to make arrests owing to the operations of the Mau.

Sir Jam es P a r r said that he gathered, therefore, that the Ordinance was a dead letter.

Sir George R ic h a r d so n replied that he had been unable to carry it out. The Commission did not realise that, in Western Samoa, he had had practically no police force to help him in maintaining law and order, and that the soil was particularly fertile for seditious propaganda. He had been powerless to prevent trouble caused under such conditions ; he had not had an efficient police force at the time or sufficient police. He had hoped that the Ordinance would act as a deterrent and would prevent people from continuing the trouble, but the Mau had issued propaganda among the natives even against this Ordinance, saying that the Government was issuing cruel and oppressive laws.

M. V an R e e s did not quite understand how it had happened that an Ordinance which was a dead letter should be reinforced by a second Ordinance, called the Maintenance of Authority in Native Affairs (No. 2) Ordinance, 1928.

Sir George R ic h a r d s o n explained that he had brought some forces into the country to help him to carry it out. M. Van R ees asked whether the second Ordinance had been put into force.

Sir George R ic h a r d so n replied that it had been in force while the warships were there.

M. Van R ees asked whether people had been punished under the Ordinance.

S ir George Richardson said that, under that Ordinance, he had arrested those who had been boycotting the stores, and they had been sentenced to six months' imprisonment.

M. V a n R e e s asked whether the Ordinances in question in any way affected the right of the Samoans to submit petitions to the League of Nations.

Sir George R ic h a r d so n replied in the negative.

M. V a n R e e s supposed that, if certain statements in the petitions were untrue, the peti­ tioners would come under the above-mentioned Article 4, which dealt with a person “ who originates, repeats or publishes any false rumour or makes, repeats or publishes any false report or misleading statement

Sir George R ic h a r d so n said h e did not agree. That would be stretching a point too far.

M. V an R e e s enquired whether the Nelson petition, for example, would fall under this article.

Sir Jam es P a r r wondered whether a lawyer would support M. Van Rees in that view. - 29 -

Information published in Samoa concerning the Nature and Functions of the League of Nations. M. R a p p a r d wished to ask the accredited representative a question regarding the famous catechism which had been mentioned in the Press : (i) Did the mandatory Power assume full responsibility for the document, and (2) was it true th at it had been made punishable for the natives of Samoa to contribute to the expenses of the printing of a petition, as he had been told ?

Sir George Richardson said that he had not read the catechism until he had reached England. It had arisen in the following way. During last year, the schoolmaster had been giving a course of instruction to native teachers and he had come to the Administrator for information about the League of Nations. Sir George Richardson had helped him and had given him quite a lot of questions to circulate around. He believed that one of the questions was as follows : “ Does the League of Nations control Samoa ? ” He thought that the question had been incorrectly translated. In Samoan the word used for “ control ” and for “ govern ” was the same— pule. He had distinctly told the schoolmaster that the League of Nations did not govern Samoa, and that had been misrepresented. He personally had been a great champion for the League of Nations, and had endeavoured to uphold it in every possible way. The question supplied by him had been obtained mostly, not from the League of Nations periodicals, as he did not receive all of them, but from Hazell’s Annual. That document contained the following question: “ If the natives send a petition to the League of Nations, what will happen ? ” He believed the answer was that the League would send it back again to the mandatory Power. Sir George Richardson wished to say that the Government of New Zealand was in no way responsible for the catechism, which was merely intended for a class-room in a school in Samoa. He took the responsibility for having said that, if the natives sent petitions to the League, they would be sent back to the mandatory Power, because at that time the Mau was conducting propaganda to the effect that the Administrator could do nothing, that the New Zealand Government could do nothing, and that they were appealing to the League of Nations. There was a general feeling that the League of Nations was the government of Samoa. They wanted to get round the Government and round the Administrator. He had told the natives all over Samoa that any petitions sent to the League of Nations must pass through him. That also was what he had intended the schoolmaster to imply when drawing up the catechism. It was unfortunate and most regrettable that, all through the Mau movement, Mr. Nelson and his Committee had endeavoured to circumvent the Administrator. They had not come to consult him ; they had tried to make the natives think that Mr. Nelson and his Committee were the people with whom they should deal, and that he (Mr. Nelson) would deal with the New Zealand Government and with the League of Nations. It wTas true that the catechism had been made by a schoolmaster with his help, but it did not truly represent what he had told the schoolmaster and it certainly was not what he personally had told the chiefs and natives all over Samoa. He had told them that petitions must first come to him and they knew it.

M. R a ppa r d did not want to discuss the details of this catechism. He simply expressed the opinion, which he trusted the Inform ation Section of the Secretariat would note, th at it would be advisable to have official League literature in the headquarters of the mandatory countries and administrations, since such documents as this catechism necessarily tended to destroy an essential element in the working of the whole system both between the administra­ tion and the administrated and between the mandatory Power and the League, namely, confidence. In this connection, he would refer to just two points in the catechism. Point 15 asks : “ Why is Samoa called a mandate ” ? “ Because Samoa is one of the countries which was formerly held by Germany and was taken away from the control of Germany by the Great Powers in the Great War.” That was no explanation of why Samoa was a mandate, and there was no mention of the fact that the mandate was a trust, which was the essential point in that connection. Point 21 asks : “ Should such person send a letter (petition) to the League of Nations, will the League receive it and give it any consideration ? “ No, they will return such a letter to the Government of the country, because the League of Nations is not a Government. It has no flag. It has neither arm y nor navy, but has only Committees made up of representatives from different countries who are there to consider and decide on matters for the advancement of the world and for the abolition of causes of wars. ” Any natives, and even a man who had not the simplicity of mind of the native, reading that answer would conclude that the intention of the author was to minimise the influence of the eague and to deter those to whom it was addressed from using the right of petition. Sir George Richardson had told the Commission that the mandatory Power was not esponsible for the catechism but that he assumed part responsibility for it with a schoolmaster, 0 whom he had supplied the ideas on the basis of which the document was drafted. Either the .ministration assumed responsibility or it did not. If it assumed responsibility, the Cont­ usion had to discuss it. It had been stated, however, that the Administration did not assume - 30 -

responsibility. If it disowned the document, had it taken any steps to let the natives know that the catechism—which had been widely circulated—misrepresented the facts, because, so long as a document published by an official and dealing with such a highly political matter had not been disowned, a native was justified in assuming that the document represented the views of the mandatory Power. In his opinion, the seriousness of the situation lay in this fact: it was quite obvious that confidence, which was specially necessary for the administration of a territory like Samoa (in the absence of a police force) was bound to be impaired by publications on behalf of the mandatory Power which were misleading, and which the enemies of the manda­ tory Power could show to be misleading. The simpler the mind of a native the more destructive to confidence was a document of this kind. He would like to hear General Richardson’s views on this matter.

The C h a ir m a n said he was sure Sir James Parr would remember that, on November 3rd of the previous year, he had had occasion to draw the attention of the accredited representative to a speech delivered by the Administrator on the occasion of the celebration of the anniversary of the King’s birthday, in which it was stated that Samoa was an integral part of the British Empire. 1 He had expressed the hope that the Government of New Zealand would take steps to make clear to the population the true position of the mandatory Power. A new case of this kind had occurred and could not be passed over in silence.

Sir Jam es P a r r complimented the Chairman on his excellent memory. He recalled the incident quite well, and he had assured the Commission at the time that the Government of New Zealand had no misconceptions as to the position of Samoa under the mandate. It knew the true position quite well. With regard to the catechism, he hoped too much would not be made of this paper, drawn up by the schoolmaster. It was obviously the work, in thought and in language, of an unskilled hand, of a rather ill-informed person.

M. R a p pa r d asked whether the document was a printed one and in the Samoan language ?

Sir George R ic h a r d so n replied that the document would certainly have first been in the Samoan language, but it was not a printed document. It was just a typed document containing some questions for the teachers. In answer to M. Rappard’s question, he would be very glad, while in Europe, to co-operate with the Information Section and have a catechism corrected and drawn up suitable for circulation in Samoa, for the purpose of rectifying any errors contained in the document under discussion.

New Zealand Loan: Possible Weakness of Administrator : Available Police Forces: Visit of Minister for Foreign Affairs: Conversations of the Latter with Mr. Nelson.

The Ch a ir m a n proposed that the various criticisms of the Administration should be dealt with in turn. Did any member wish to ask for further information concerning the provisions for the sale of copra ? No observations.

The Ch a ir m a n asked if any of his colleagues wished to put any questions concerning the criticism regarding extravagance in the expenditure of public revenue.

Dr. K a stl referred to a statement made to the effect that complaints had been lodged regarding a loan by New Zealand to Samoa of £100,000, £150,000 or £200,000. Had there been any possibility of explaining to the natives (the Faipules) the situation as regards this debt r

Sir Jam es P a r r replied that so many untruths had been told to the Samoans about this loan that the Governor had felt it necessary to make a statement to them. He had done so. The reference to it would be found on page xiii of the report. He had spoken to a very large assembly of natives and had explained the position.

The Ch a ir m a n asked if any one wished to put any questions regarding the alleged abuse of power on the part of the Administrator.

M. R a p pa r d said that, although there was certainly no suspicion of tyranny in his mind, he would like to ask a question which struck him as rather important. He could not escape the impression that, far from being tyrannical, the Administrator had been disarmed in face of the growing hostility. He had read with great care and with great interest the Minutes of the two public meetings held in October and November 1926, in which Nelson had organised the opposition to the Govern­ ment. At the beginning of the second meeting, an official had arrived on behalf of the Governor and had read a letter couched in the most courteous and almost deferential terms. After the reading of this letter, which was very moderate and guarded in tone, a motion had been pu to the vote whether it was to be considered or not. It was not considered and the meeting wen

1 See Minutes of the Twelfth Session, page 103. — 3 i — gaily on. Had Sir George Richardson, on looking back on the position, had any idea about the effect of allowing the expressed will of the responsible Governor to be thwarted in such a way ? Was it not dangerous when dealing with a native population which was very ingenuous in the confidence it expressed towards the Administrator ? He had been very much touched by decla­ rations of native chiefs who had said, “ Yes, we agree with Mr. Nelson, but we would not like to do anything which would in any way hurt the feelings of the Administrator ”. Looking back, did not the Administrator think that, if he wished his will to prevail, if he wished to assert his authority, the method adopted was hardly calculated to maintain order by consolidat­ ing his authority and by impressing his subjects with the absolute necessity for obeying his will ? Was it not a pity that the Administrator had not asserted his will with greater force at the time to which he referred and which was the time when the trouble had begun ?

M. Merlin would like to ask a supplementary question. At the time when the trouble began, had the Administrator the police force necessary to enforce his decisions ? He would like to know exactly what police force had been available.

Sir George Richardson replied that about thirty police had been distributed around the island, the majority being in Apia. There were also two white and two half-caste police officials. The position had now been corrected, and there was an adequate police force in Samoa.

M. Merlin asked of what the police force consisted now that it had been reinforced.

Sir George Richardson replied that there were about seventy white police and thirty or forty Samoans. M. Rappard had asked him a very important question. He had touched on what Sir George Richardson considered to be the vital spot in the weakness displayed at the commencement of this trouble. When dealing with natives, it was necessary that offences against the law should be dealt with promptly. Two basic principles must exist in the government of natives : (i) there must be goodwill towards the Administration, and (2) they must know that they could not commit offences with impunity. Since the Mau, natives saw that they could commit offences and not be punished. At the commencement of the Mau, he had not had th epower to deal with Mr. Nelson or with those who worked against the Administration by inciting the natives to continue the agitation. He had reported the matter to the Government of New Zealand, but, in view of the approaching visit of the Minister, nothing was done and he had even anticipated that the visit would end the trouble. When he had sent his courteous letter to the chairman (Mr. Nelson) of the public meeting, he naturally thought that Mr. Nelson and the other elected members of the Legislative Council would co-operate loyally with him, as it was their bounden duty to do. That they did not do so was an unpardonable offence, in view of the fact that the principals were Legislative Coun­ cillors associated with him in the Council for the object of maintaining the peace, order and good government of the territory. The weakness of the situation during this agitation was that the Administrator did not take strong action at the outset to settle the trouble.

M. Rappard thanked Sir George Richardson for his answer. He had referred to lack of power. Did that mean that he had not had the legislative power to begin judicial proceedings in virtue of the Ordinance of which the Commission had heard, or did he mean that he had not had the physical power to assure the execution of any writ he might at that time have issued ?

Sir George Richardson replied that he had neither the physical nor the legal power.

Sir Jam es Parr wished to add one sentence. It was necessary for the New Zealand Parlia­ ment to pass an Act giving the Administrator power to deal as criminal offenders with those who had agitated and stirred up the natives so as to hinder and prejudice the government of the country. That power had been granted last year.

M. Rappard wished to emphasise the importance of this matter, and in connection with it he would like to ask another question. Mr. Nelson, on September 1st, had been received by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister. He had corresponded freely with them and had negotiated with them on behalf of the territory, almost as if he had had the power to do so. On his return, he had been welcomed as a friend and as a prominent citizen by the Administrator. It was easy, of course, to look hack, and at that time it might have been more difficult to look forward, but, looking back, did not the mandatory Power think that the treatment meted out to a man like Mr. Nelson was calculated dangerously to increase his feelings of self-importance, just as the extreme moderation shown in dealing with the public meeting was calculated to encourage insubordina­ tion, just as the publication of the catechism was calculated to undermine confidence and just as> also, that very severe Ordinance, which was issued without the power to carry it out, was calculated to weaken the authority of the mandatory Power ? It was easy now to recognise what might have been mistakes, but in order to be clear as to the attitude of the mandatory Power towards its policy during the last two years, M. Rappard would be grateful for a reply to those questions. — 32 —

Sir Jam es P a rr saw an aspect of comedy as well as of tragedy about this phase of the matter. The Governor, as the best friend of Mr. Nelson, had supplied him with a letter of introduction to the New Zealand Prime Minister. Sir George Richardson had been absolutely unsuspicious of any evil intent in the mind of Mr. Nelson, and up to that time had regarded him as a genuine friend. The Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs had received Mr. Nelson, who had introduced himself by means of this letter. There was no doubt that, at the interview, he had made unfavourable criticisms—for the first time, and behind the Administrator—of the Administration.

Sir George R ich a r d so n said he had never heard what those criticisms were.

Sir Jam es P a r r , continuing, said that Mr. Nelson had gone back to Samoa and had used this interview as a trump card in the game. Precisely as M. Rappard had suspected, the inter­ view had tended greatly to enhance Mr. Nelson’s prestige. Mr. Nelson was received by the Prime Minister, who, of course, was quite unsuspecting of his real purpose. Certainly, in the light of to-day he would think that the Prime Minister would say that Mr. Nelson was the last man he would receive or trust upon the Samoan question. But every one had to learn. Nobody knew at that time quite the kind of person Mr. Nelson proved to be. The interview accorded to Mr. Nelson was used with successful effect in unsettling the minds of the natives on his return to Samoa.

Dr. K astl asked Sir George Richardson whether he had been informed officially by the Prime Minister of New Zealand of the results of the interview with Mr. Nelson and especially of the promise given to Mr. Nelson to send the Minister for Foreign Affairs to Samoa. Was it true that the only person in Samoa, after the return of Mr. Nelson, who knew something of the Prime Minister’s decision to send the Minister for Foreign Affairs to Samoa was Mr. Nelson himself ?

Sir George R ic h a r d so n did not know then and did not know now what was said at that interview. With regard to the promise to send the Minister to Samoa, he had been assured by the Minister himself that his coming to Samoa was in 110 way the result of the interview, but had been prearranged by him in his capacity as Minister. He had wished to make himself conversant with the local conditions. The remainder of the discussion was adjourned to the next meeting.

SIXTEENTH MEETING

Held on Friday, June 22nd, 1928, at 10.15 a.m.

862. Western Samoa : Examination of the Report of the Royal Commission concerning the Administration of Western Samoa (continuation). Sir James Parr, High Commissioner for New Zealand, and Major-General Sir George S. Richardson, K.B.E., C.B., C.M.G., former Administrator of Western Samoa, came to the table of the Commission.

Method of appointing Faipules.

M. R a ppa r d asked Sir George Richardson whether he thought that the complaint about the nomination, instead of the election, of Faipules was one th at really reflected deep-rooted discontent among the natives, or if it was one of those grievances that had been suggested to them by the whites.

Sir George R ic h a r d so n was absolutely convinced that this alleged grievance had been suggested to the natives by the whites and had not existed prior to the Mau agitation.

Lord L u ga rd asked whether the Faipules had always been paid, or whether that was a new system. A suggestion had been made that, because they were paid, they were not recognised by the Samoans.

Sir George Richardson said they had always been paid. All native officials re ce iv e d a small salary. The salary of a Faipule was from £36 to £40 a year. He believed that this had excited a certain amount of jealousy. He had recently asked one of the chiefs h o w the Mau trouble could be ended. He had replied : “ There are too many chiefs who are v e r y jea lo u s of each other but you could end it to-morrow if you made them all Faipules ”. M. R a p p a r d observed that the fact of being paid always excited jealousy, but he would like to know whether Sir George Richardson had the impression that it also re n d e re d the Faipules who were paid less representative. Did the rest of the population look upon them more as officials of the Administration and less as chiefs belonging to their own social system ■ Sir George Richardson replied in the negative. There had never been any question of their being considered non-representative of their people until the commencement of the — 33 — m o v em e n t, which had had as one of its objects the undermining of the Faipule authority and of that of the Adm inistration by creating feeling against native officials. M. Palacios said that a good many references had been made in the various petitions to the method of appointing the Faipules, together with criticisms of the choice made. There were definite allegations, for instance, in the Rowe petition (document C.P.M. 571). He did not in any way endorse what Mr. Rowe had said, but he would like to know General Richardson’s views on the allegations made in that petition, for example, regarding the Tolova case to which reference was m ade in Foreign Affairs for June 1927. Sir George Richardson said that Mr. Rowe’s allegation was quite untrue. The Faipule mentioned in the petition was one Sir George had dismissed : he did not reappoint him. Great care was taken in the selection of Faipules by the Administrator. The Faipule in the first place must be one of the chiefs of high rank, and all the Faipules to-day were, with one or two exceptions, of the highest rank of chiefs in their districts. Sir Jam es P a r r was aware that the Commission wished to form its judgment apart from the findings of the Royal Commission, but he hoped he would be permitted to refer to one paragraph in the report. It dealt exhaustively with this question, which, it said, was the most important charge against the Administration. On page xxx the following passage occurred : “ We are satisfied that there is no foundation for this, the important charge made against the administration of Sir George Richardson. We are satisfied that he did consult the people of the district before appointing a Faipule and assured himself that the appoint­ ment would be an agreeable one to them. We are satisfied that this was also done during Colonel Tate’s administration. We are satisfied that no complaint was ever made as to the method of the appointment of Faipules by the Administrator until after the meeting of October 1926. It was then taken up by the Mau as a cry or slogan against the Administration. ” Sir George Richardson wished to explain to the Commission that the law did not provide for the nomination by the people of the district of their Faipules, but during his regime he had introduced this system with a view to teaching the natives some day to elect their Faipules in accordance with modern methods. His efforts in this connection had not been successful, and as regards one district he had been waiting for two and a-half years for the chiefs to nomi­ nate one of their number. They had been unable to agree amongst themselves and he had been informed that each of them wanted to be appointed Faipule. They had stated that they would prefer the Governor to make his selection and to name the individual. The agitation of the Mau, however, had created the idea of election, which he knew could not be carried out^

Medical Tax.

Dr. K a s t l had gathered from the report that the Ordinance regarding the medical tax was issued before Sir George Richardson had gone to Samoa. From experience with natives in Africa and elsewhere, he understood that they were very particular regarding medical treat­ ment. They did not like to be forced to undergo medical treatment against their own wishes. He would ask whether the Medical Ordinance introducing a tax for medical treatment had been instituted in spite of the fact that a number of the natives might not have had adequate access to medical treatment on account of the distance they lived from a hospital or from a medical staff. Had any enquiries been made from the Faipules or from the District Councils, through the chiefs, regarding the introduction of the medical tax ? The natives might have felt that they had not adequate access to medical treatment, or they might not have wished to have it. They might have preferred, in the event of falling ill, to be treated according to their own customs, and might not, therefore, have wished to pay the tax for medical treatment. He would ask, therefore, whether enquiries were made before the medical tax was issued. Sir George Richardson said that the decision to levy a medical tax or to call for a medical contribution by the natives had been taken prior to his arrival in Samoa, but it had not been coded as an Ordinance. The Ordinance was made shortly after his arrival there. It had been based 011 the fact that the Faipules themselves had, after consulting their people, agreed to make the contribution. At that time, the people of Samoa had been full of disease. Thousands °f the natives were covered with sores and it was known that their anaemic condition during epidemics was largely the cause of the high death rate. He had therefore laid it down as a principle that medical service must, as far as possible, be placed within the reach of all in Savaii, as well as m Upolu. It had been difficult to do this. It involved the training of boys to be medical practitioners, the training of a large number of nurses, the establishment of medical dispensaries around the islands, and of additional hospitals. A large amount of money had been spent 111 ^at way. The position at the present time was very satisfactory, and medical attention was practically within the reach of all. He had, however, heard from Savaii th at the natives there did not receive the same attention as those in Upolu who lived in close proximity to the hospitals. e had therefore told the Faipules that it was his wish to reduce the £1 medical tax as ttruch as possible, and he had considered the possibility of making it less in those districts where ,?e natives were not able to get immediate attention at the hospitals. After consultation with c Faipules, however, it had been thought better to make the tax uniform, because so many atives travelled ; they went to Apia and other hospital centres and thus got medical attention. ^ In 1927, therefore, the poll and medical taxes had been consolidated, making the total Personal tax of 36s., which included free medical treatment for all. This was less than that in — 34 —

Tonga and slightly less than that in Tutuila. The Administration, however, had gone one step further and had said that, in order to avoid contracting debts, which natives used to do at the traders’ stores in order to obtain the money wherewith to pay their taxes, they could if they wished pay their tax in copra. The price allowed by the Administration for tax copra would represent to the native the equivalent of 26s. at current prices paid by the trader, which would be the lowest taxation of any Polynesian natives in the South Seas. It was true th at several years ago, natives had objected to receiving medical attention, The Samoans, in some cases, had preferred their own methods of treatment, which the doctors had reported as dangerous and in many cases fatal, and it was necessary to popularise the medical service by tact, kindness, and by showing good results. He could safely say that the natives now had great confidence in the Medical Department in spite of the attempt of one of the agitators to undermine that confidence at the political meetings. The great cry to-day on the part of the natives was, “ Give us more doctors, give us more nurses, and increase our medical service,” in spite of the fact that the Administration was spending 20 per cent of its revenue on that service.

Dr. K astl wished, in order to avoid misunderstanding, to state th a t he quite appreciated the provisions made by the Administration of Samoa for medical attention. It had created the best possible service. He had merely referred to the disinclination of the natives to pay a medical tax.

“ Fine Mat Malagas. ”

M. Rappard wished to have Sir George Richardson’s views on the complaint m ade by various petitioners that the suppression of the “ fine mat malaga ” custom had had a great deal to do with the discontent of the natives. He quite realised the social dangers of those institutions which tended to excessive and extravagant hospitality and consequently to the impoverishment of the natives. It seemed, however, that the natives were very much attached to these customs, and he would like to have Sir George’s views on the necessity and the expediency of combating them.

Sir George Richardson said that, as he had explained yesterday, not one native custom had been changed by him except at the request of the natives themselves, and only two or three native customs had been touched at all. The “fine m at” custom was one, and it h ad been the first to be represented to him by the Faipules as being harmful, for it caused poverty in certain villages visited by these large parties. It was also harmful because the natives incurred heavy debts at the stores for kegs of salt beef used for entertaining their visitors. Plantations were neglected by the visiting party, while the hosts’ plantations were more or less used up. The Faipules had urged that the practice should be stopped. It was the custom that, when there was some important wedding, the commemoration of the building of a Fale, or the granting of a title to some person, large parties would come from different parts of the islands and bring “ fine mats ” to make presents to the hosts. They would remain for some days, probably passing through a number of villages where they would also be fed. During their stay there would be feasting, and then, at the end of the ceremony, there would be an exchange of “ fine mats ” given to different chiefs and Tulafales. He believed that that portion of the ceremony was the cause of much dissatisfaction and trouble. The presentation of “ fine mats ” not only caused trouble, but in former days had been known to cause wars because of the dissatisfac­ tion at the way the “ fine mats ” were distributed to different people. He had had quite an open mind on the question, and had merely carried out th e wishes of the Faipules by issuing an exhortation. They had said, “ Let us agree to discontinue this custom forthwith as a trial ”, or, rather, they had said this at his suggestion. He had not wanted to make a permanent law on any custom which he knew might disturb the people. No law therefore had been made, and it had been agreed to discontinue the “ fine mat malagas for three years. Subsequently he had travelled around the island from district to district, and had always asked this question : “ What about the fine mat resolution ? ” With one or two exceptions, all had agreed that it was a good thing. When the Mau agitation had started, it was quite easy for agitators to appeal to certain chiefs pointing out that this resolution was against their interests and should not be carried out. Chiefs could be appealed to on this question quite easily, because they were the beneficiaries, they received the “ fine mats ”. That was why he had been surprised that the Faipules who, in their capacity as chiefs, would b en e fit by receiving “ fine mats ”, had themselves made the proposal, because they must have realised it was against their personal interests. They evidently realised that it was for the good of Samoa. H e was satisfied that it would be a good thing to make the exhortation a law. It was not a law to-day, though the Faipules had asked him to make it so. In order to pacify the Mau, he had said to the chiefs : “ You have the power in your own hands ; if any particular district wants its fine mat malagas, so far as I am concerne you have only to say so and you can have them”.

M. Rappard wished to raise a point in this connection. Sir George Richardson had been good enough to tell the Commission very often that he had taken certain action in full consul a tion with, and with the approval of, the Faipules. M. Rappard thought that most of members of the Commission had received the impression that the Samoans were of an extra — 35 ~

ordinarily fluctuating disposition, and had a way of verbally agreeing with suggestions while withholding their real approval. He wished to ask Sir George Richardson whether he thought that, by consulting the Faipules, he had really got to the bottom of the native mind in most cases, or had he sometimes been disappointed to find that even unanimous Faipule recommendations were disavowed by themselves and by other people later ? Sir George Richardson said he had known of that peculiar characteristic of the Samoans, and therefore very early in his career in Samoa had urged the Faipules always to open their hearts to him, to tell him exactly what they thought, and not to mind about giving him offence. He had told them not to try to be courteous and to say what they believed he would like to hear. He had constantly talked to them in this way until they had become by no means tools in his hands. They had grown to have the utmost confidence in him and would tell him candidly what they thought and what their people thought. He had been able, moreover, to obtain the views of the people by going each year to every district, meeting all the chiefs and talking matters over with them. The Samoan expressed himself freely if he was displeased, and he could assure the Commission that the Faipules would always speak to him quite freely and candidly. M. Van Rees asked whether the Samoans as a whole were known to be an obedient people with a respect for authority. Sir George Richardson replied in the affirmative. This characteristic had been quite conspicuous prior to the agitation of the Mau.

M. Van R ees desired to know, while noting the above reply, whether the Samoans were, in a general way, able to distinguish between an Ordinance, an exhortation or a resolution, all originating with the authorities.

Sir George Richardson said that the Faipules did so distinguish. He felt bound to admit that at one stage they did look upon every resolution passed by the Fono of Faipules as law. There was really only one word in Samoan for order or for law, namely, Tulafono. Nevertheless, they all understand the difference between a resolution and a law to-day.

Local Banishment and Deprivation of Titles.

M. V a n Rees wished to have some additional information regarding the application of the Samoa Offenders Ordinance. Certain figures were given on page xxxvii of the report and others on page xxxix. On page 484, there were still other figures. It would be of interest if a small table could be prepared indicating more clearly the effect of the Ordinance in question.

Sir Jam es P a r r said that the table on page 484 had been drawn up for the Commission and was correct.

M. V a n Rees replied that the table of which he had spoken, which, moreover, he did not ask to have immediately, might contain replies to the following questions :

1. What was the total number of persons who had been ordered to leave their place of residence : {a) before the establishment of the Mau ; (b) since its establishment ? 2. How many of them were chiefs ? 3. What rank was held by these chiefs ? 4. Was there still any chief who had not yet been allowed to return to his village ? As regards the deprivation of titles the following questions arose : 1. How many persons were deprived of their titles ? 2. What rank did they hold ? 3. Were there still some persons whose titles had not yet been restored to them ?

Lord L u g a r d said he could not find the reference, but in some of the papers he had read he had seen it stated that the Royal Commission had said that it could not enquire into the question of deportations because they had been carried out under an Act of the New Zealand Parliament and therefore were not within its terms of reference. Was not banishment also an Act of Parliament ?

Sir Jam es P a r r said that this question had been specially referred to the Royal Commission under the Order of Reference ; it had been asked to saywhether, in its opinion, “ it would be prudent and safe to repeal and abrogate all power to require a Samoan to removefor a definite period from one place on the islands to another ”,

Lord L uga rd asked whether, in spite of banishments being covered by an Act of Parliament, the Terms of Reference included them but excluded deportations.

Sir Jam es P arr replied that there had been no deportations before the Royal commission sat. — 36 —

He wished to call the attention of M. Van Rees and Lord Lugard to a statement on page xl of the report, which seemed to him to give valuable information regarding this question of local banishment, as it was called. The Commission said : “ Some fifty-nine orders in all were made, affecting fifty individuals. Forty-two orders directed Natives to return to their homes from Apia or to remain in their home village of Apia or its environs, and eight orders directed Natives to remove to other villages than their own home villages. Some of these orders were to continue in force for a period of three months, and some for a period of twelve months. Of the total orders made some thirty-nine were disobeyed, and it was found advisable not to enforce them. These fifty- nine orders are the orders which were mostly complained of before us. ”

Sir George R ich a rd so n said that only eight natives were ordered to go to other villages.

Sir Jam es P arr rem arked th a t he feared these orders had been largely blank cartridges.

Lord L uga rd asked whether it was advisable or expedient to make these orders if there was not the power to enforce them.

Sir George R ich a rd so n said he h a d not realised that he had not the power to enforce them until he tried to do so. At the time the orders were made, he had not realised that the Mau natives would resist the police, or even that they would not accept a summons.

Sir Jam es P a rr hoped he was justified in concluding, from the almost complete disobedience to these orders, that they had not been a really live factor in influencing the natives against the Administration. They had treated them with contempt ; that was the danger and not any hardship.

Sir George R ich a rd so n said the banishments had not in any way caused the trouble ; the trouble wras already there.

M. V a n R e e s observed that the passage to which Sir James Parr had referred gave the orders issued after the establishment of the Mau, but others had been referred to which were issued before its establishment.

Sir Jam es P a rr said that the orders referred to were to be found on page xxxvii under domestic offences and matters of conduct.

Sir George R ic h a r d so n said that, before the Mau had been formed, there had been very few cases of banishment, and only occasionally requests had been submitted by the natives to have persons removed from their village, who were causing trouble through committing adultery and other offences against Samoan native customs. If those offenders had been left in their villages, it might in some cases have led to murder, and that was why they were removed. There were only seven current cases of natives removed from their village at the commencement of the Mau, and these would probably have been pardoned in 1926, and he thought had, in fact, all been pardoned in 1927. He was quite satisfied that banishments effected before the Mau had been formed were in no way a cause of dissatisfaction among the natives themselves.

M. Merlin asked how many cases there had been since the Mau had been formed.

Sir George R ich a r d so n said the statistics were given on page 484 of the report.

M. Me r l in observed that the figure given on that page was fifty-nine. He understood that seven or eight chiefs had been ordered to be banished.

Sir George R ic h a r d so n said there wTould have been no cause for those banishments if Nelson’s Committee had not stirred up trouble. Of the fifty-nine mentioned, nearly all were cases of natives who had been ordered to go back to their own villages. They could not justly be called “ banishments ”.

Lord Lugard asked whether any similar orders of banishment were operative in American Samoa.

Sir George R ich a r d so n could not say what banishments were carried out in that territory, but the custom was the same.

M. R a ppa r d did not attach great importance to the statistics of these deportations, but he had been surprised by the statement made by Sir James Parr that, inasmuch as the deporta­ tions ordered after the Mau trouble were not carried out, they could not have been a cause for discontent. It seems to him that orders issued and resisted were the best possible symptom of trouble and at the same time were the cause of trouble. The fact that no hardship had ensued because the orders had been violated did not seem to him to be a reason for disregarding those orders as a cause of discontent. Sir Jam es Parr pointed out that the answer had been given by General Richardson, who was on the spot. He had said that these orders did not need to be considered seriously as a cause of unrest and disaffection. The natives had treated the orders as if they did not exist. They had not feared them, they had despised them. — 37 —

Sir George R ich a r d so n added that they were simply defying the Administration in that as in other things.

Sir Jam es P a r r observed that it was general defiance of the whole Administration that was evident.

European Membership on the Legislative Council.

The Cha irm a n noted that one of the complaints which had been made by various petitioners—it had also appeared in the Press—was that the chief judge of the territory, Mr. Woodward, was allowed to sit as a member of the Legislative Council. He asked why the Administration had been prompted to arrange for the inclusion of the chief judge as a nominated member of the Legislative Council and if it was in conformity with the principles of good administration that the representative of the highest judicial power in the territory, who might be called on to hear cases regarding the application of certain legislative measures, should himself participate in the introduction or discussion of legislation.

Sir George R ic h a r d so n said that the appointment had not led to any difficulty. Samoa was a very small territory and the Administrator had a very small staff. He was not a lawyer and would not sit in the Legislative Council unless one of his colleagues upon it had been able to give legal advice. Mr. Woodward had therefore been nominally made a member of the Legis­ lative Council so that he could be in attendance in case the second lawyer was away on leave or on duty and not able to be present. He had sat only on one or two occasions when it had not been possible for the Crown Solicitor to be present.

Lord L uga rd said he had been told several times that the European members of the Legis­ lative Council could not interfere in native affairs, and Mr. Nosworthy, the Minister for External Affairs, had emphasised that point when he visited Samoa. Why could they not interfere ? Any Ordinances which affected native affairs were brought before the Legislative Council, and he presumed the European members could vote against them if they wished. A unanimous unofficial vote carried a great deal of weight. His point was that they had an opportunity of exercising any influence which they wished to exert.

Sir George R ic h a r d so n said that all native matters requiring to be embodied as laws were brought before the Legislative Council, but he had made it a rule that no native matters should be put before it until he had consulted the Fono of Faipules and thoroughly satisfied himself that the proposals were in accord with the interests and wishes of the natives. He thought that the elected European members had chiefly objected to the fact that he, together with the Government, having obtained the wishes of the Faipules and made up their minds that a certain native law or regulation required to be passed and brought before the Legislative Council, were in the majority and would pass the law or regulation in native interests ; the » elected members, however, certainly had a voice in discussing and advising on all matters that were put before the Council.

Lord L uga rd asked whether the record of the proceedings of the Legislative Council wrere " sent to New Zealand, so that the decisions taken might be known by the authorities.

Sir George R ic h a r d so n replied that they were circulated. Arrangements were now being made for the Minutes of the Legislative Council to be sent to the Mandates Commission in future.

Trading Licences.

M. R a ppa r d , referring to the question of these licences, wished merely to note that appa­ rently something had gone wrong with them. The Royal Commission recognised that some action had been taken which was not strictly in accord with the legal rights of the Administra­ tion. Could Sir George Richardson give the Commission any information as to the causes and results of this irregularity ?

Sir George R ic h a r d so n replied that, when evidencehadbeen brought to him that Mr. Nelson’s traders and others had been circulating Mau propaganda and collecting funds from the natives, he had set up a small Committee consisting of the Crown Sohcitor, the Collector of Customs, and one other person to deal with this matter and to write letters warning them and calling upon them to show why their licences should not be cancelled. Later, direct evidence had been obtained, and complaints had been made by native chiefs themselves against certain traders. In order to act as a deterrent and to check this movement, he had asked the Crown Solicitor 0 cancel the licences of three traders, which, he understood, had been done. He had learnt subsequently that, while a small independent trader was granted a personal licence from the ollector of Customs, those who were merely employees of a mercantile firm, such as Nelson Tt, V which had about forty traders around the islands, had not been given personal licences. e licence for Nelson & Co. merely had an endorsement on it for each trader employed ; that, while the cancellation of licences had been ordered and should have been effective, 16 traders had had no personal licences to cancel, so that legally the cancellation was invalid. As soon as the position was clearly ascertained, orders were given that every trader must have a personal licence. M. Rappard asked for information regarding the passenger boat licence.

Sir George Richardson replied that the boat had been owned by one of the chiefs, w ho had been ordered to be removed from Apia to a village about a mile and a-half away, Papaliulu.

Individualisation of Family Lands.

M. V a n R e e s , referring to the question of the individualisation of family lands, dealt with on page xxxiv of the Royal Commission’s report, observed that the resolution relating to the division of family land was only optional ; it would in no way be compulsory. The text of the resolution itself said (document C. 494.1927. VI[C. P.M. 634]): “In order that every Samoan shall reap the reward of his own labour and benefit by his own efforts, it is desired . , On the other hand, it then went on, “ The land in each district will be surveyed by the Government. To each taxpayer who has no land will be allocated one block . . Moreover, Article 13 said : “ The change from the present system of owning and cultivating land will necessarily be slow. It cannot be made all at once, but steps will be taken to bring about the change by district councils issuing as many new land titles as possible to the young men and others who are now without land." The Minutes of the meeting of the Commission held on November 4th, 1927, page 122, included a statement by Sir James Parr to the effect that the natives were constantly being encouraged by the Administration to have and acquire more holdings. It was known that it was not intended to make the reform compulsory, but was it inconceivable that the native supposed this to be an order rather than an option ? This impression certainly might have been created, which might explain the lack of enthusiasm shown by the Samoans in connection with this reform instituted for their happiness. The Royal Commission has only examined the reform from the legal point of view. It was regrettable that the possible psycho­ logical effect of the measure had not been taken into consideration.

Sir George Richardson said it must be remembered that, in the first place, the natives, through their Faipules, had asked for this provision to divide up land; secondly, that the natives had a form of local self-government. Their district councils controlled all matters in the district, and it was left to each district to act upon the resolution if it wished, with the help of the Administration. It was fully understood that there was no law ; the scheme had been proceeding satisfactorily until one or two Europeanised natives in Apia had had to find some means of creating agitation or some alleged cause of discontent. The question of the division of land had not been a cause of discontent, except, perhaps, in one or two districts where a few people might have thought that their own chiefs were not dividing up the land properly. He could assure the Commission, however, that there was no dissatisfaction. The matter was in the hands of the natives themselves, and, only the day before he left Samoa, natives from one district had come to him asking him to arrange that a large area of land should be divided up between individuals.

M. V a n R e e s thought it might be concluded that no pressure had been brought to bear by the Administration.

Sir George Richardson agreed. It must be kept in mind throughout that the alleged grievances were in the first place made by Europeans, who did not understand what was happening in matters of native administration.

Native Petition.

Lord L u g a r d asked Sir George Richardson if he had seen the draft of the native petition,

Sir George Richardson replied in the affirmative.

Lord L u g a r d said it had been suggested somewhere in the papers before the Commission that the petition had actually been drawn up by Mr. Slipper, the legal adviser of the Matt, Did the petition bear any indication of that ? Was it in the handwriting of a European or were there any other indications that it had been drawn up by Europeans ?

Sir George Richardson replied that evidence had been brought to him from natives that Mr. Slipper had drawn it up. He could not give proof of this, but he was quite confident th a t he had done so. The petition had been typed, but there were corrections on it which he believed to be in Mr. Slipper’s handwriting.

The Mau: Influence and Legality.

Lord L u g a r d asked whether any ordinance existed empowering the Administrator to declare an organisation to be an illegal organisation. Had the Mau ever been d e c la re d to be an illegal organisation ? — 39 —

Sir George R ichardson said it had hot formally been declared an illegal organisation. The last Maintenance of Authority Ordinance provided that the Administrator could take action against any illegal organisation, but did not legally define the word “ Mau ”. He did not remember whether the “ Mau ” was specifically mentioned in a proclamation he had issued when that Ordinance was passed.

Sir Jam es P arr said he thought that action could only be taken against individuals.

Lord Lugard observed that it had been said that the Mau comprised something like go per cent of the population, while Sir George Richardson, he thought, had said that the figure was more like 60 per cent. According to the pictures seen by the members of the Commission, there had been enormous demonstrations when Sir George Richardson left Samoa. Were the people of the Mau demonstrating in his honour ?

Sir George Richardson replied that, when he left Samoa, there had been a very large demonstration of several thousand people who had given a very enthusiastic send-off and made patriotic speeches. There had also been a demonstration of a large number of Mau natives in Apia. As regards Lord Lugard’s first question, he had asked each Faipule, at the last Fono of Faipules held in February 1928, to tell him how many of the people were in the Mau. He had taken down the figures they had given him and had worked it out that about 40 per cent were still loyal and about 60 per cent were in the Mau. He had also been told that, in the case of most of the natives in the Mau, their hearts were not in it, but they had been intimidated and forced into it.

Information published in Samoa concerning the Nature and Functions of the League of Nations (continuation).

M. Rappard wished to refer to two documents in his possession about which he would like to have Sir George’s opinion. The first was an extract from the paper Foreign Affairs of October 1927, which was published in London. It stated : “ But the Commission should take note of the report that the Rev. F. G. Lewis, Secretary for Native Affairs, has circulated throughout Savai’i, in the Samoan language, a telegram in which the following passage occurs : ‘ The Associated Governments of all the world have passed a law thus : No complaint of any nature from any country under any mandate or protection such as Samoa will be able to be presented to the League of Nations, which will be unable to receive them.’ ” He would like to know whether Sir George Richardson knew of this document, and what was his opinion of it ?

Sir George Richardson was unable to say whether it was true or not. M. Rappard pointed out that the telegram was reported to have been issued during his period of office. Sir George R ichardson replied that there had been so much propaganda of that kind that he had taken no notice of the Press. M. Rappard supposed that the same answer would apply to an extract from the Samoa Guardian of December 1st, 1927, in which it was stated that two documents had been issued to the Faipules by the Administration since the Royal Commission left Samoa, and that in the second of these it was stated by the Administration that Samoans could not present a petition to the League. He suppose that this was a reference to the so-called catechism. Sir George R ichardson replied that Toelupe’s evidence with regard to the Samoan Guardian was quite apropos and sufficient. He remarked (page 288) that everything he said had been misconstrued and misrepresented for purposes of propaganda. The Chairman asked Sir George Richardson to be good enough to give more details. Sir George R ichardson said that the extract mentioned by M. Rappard referred to the document sent out by the schoolmaster called a catechism which had been referred to the New Zealand Government and on which the Commission would receive a full report from it. Sir Jam es P arr asked M. Rappard who had supplied him with the extract ? M. Rappard said that the Secretariat had received the Samoa Guardian. Sir George R ichardson appealed to the Commission not to place much credence in the Samoa Guardian.

M. Rappard replied that the Commission did not attach undue importance to it. It received a lot of documents, a great m any of which were, of course, quite negligible. Sir Jam es Parr wished to make one observation with regard to the statements attributed to the Governor concerning the relative constitutional positions of the mandatory Power and the League. It had been evident to him in London that, during the last two months, an organised attempt had been made, by one well-known person to sow as much dissension as possible between the League and the m andatory Power. - 4o —

Sir George R ichardson added that it was intended to discredit him also.

Sir Jam es P a r r continuing, said he could assure the Commission that reports of this kind had been circulated broadcast and, with one exception, all the newspapers, who now knew Mr. Nelson and his friends, had treated those reports as they deserved. They had ignored them as obvious and interested propaganda against the mandatory.

The Chairman said th a t the members of the Commission fully understood the position. At the same time, seeing that Geneva was so far away from Samoa and that certain persons would seize every opportunity of causing misunderstanding, Sir James Parr would understand how important it was that each of the subordinates, even ordinary schoolmasters, should be prevented from making any public statements or doing anything which might lay the Adminis­ tration open to such insinuations. He was sure Sir James Parr realised the necessity for preventing any action being taken which might enable such persons to represent Sir George Richardson as a man who did not understand his mission and his duty vis-à-vis the League of Nations, or the mission and obligations of the Permanent Mandates Commission.

Sir Jam es Parr entirely agreed, and wished to suggest that, in order to obviate any further misunderstandings and to prevent disagreeable incidents in the future, he should collaborate with the Chairman and M. Rappard in framing a simple statement of the true relationship between Geneva and New Zealand that would be understood by the simple minds of the Samoans.

Naval Demonstration 1928. The Present Situation.

The Chairman thanked Sir Jam es P arr and asked Sir George Richardson to explain as briefly as possible, in the first place, at what time he had made up his mind that a naval demonstration was desirable, secondly, of what the demonstration consisted, and thirdly, what was its effect.

Sir George Richardson said that on February 8th he had called the Faipules together and had said : “ Your duty now is to help the Administration to end this trouble and I want you to meet with the Chiefs of the Mau in a friendly way and induce them to put all their troubles before you and myself and settle the matter." A delegation of Faipules had gone to see the Mau Committee and had sent letters to it. They had been treated very discourteously by the Mau Committee and all efforts to bring them together were unavailing. Sir George had then sent a letter to the Mau asking the chiefs to come and see him ; it was a very courteous letter, to which they replied, refusing to come. The Mau chiefs had been freely spreading information among the natives that Mr. Nelson had sent them letters of encouragement telling them not to do anything until he returned victorious from the League of Nations, and not to fear the white police. One of the European leaders of the Mau had been reported to him for telling the natives that New Zealand would not do anything to the Mau, and dared not do anything because the League of Nations would prevent it. Large numbers of natives had been put into a uniform consisting of a blue lava-lava made by the firm of Nelson & Co. and called themselves the " Mau Police ", saying that they were organised to maintain order among their own people, but it was well known that their object was to resist the action of the Government police. There were between 300 and 400 of the “ Mau Police ”. They had talked somewhat violently and started to boycott the stores along the main street of Apia. Sir George Richardson had ordered the Government police to arrest any natives that were seen intimidating others, and preventing them from entering stores, but he did not succeed in getting one arrested. The real Samoan police had been quite ineffective. A number of residents, including planters and others had come to him and said th at the attitude of the Mau natives was so threatening that the New Zealand Government should support him by force to do something to put an end to the Mau. One of the managers of a big mercantile firm in Apia had informed him that he was satisfied that Mr. Nelson, prior to leaving Samoa, had actually organised this boycott. He said : “ I thought before that he (Mr. Nelson) was sincere, although I know his attitude in regard to this agitation is wrong. I now have evidence to prove that he is not sincere, and I am satisfied that he a rran g e d this boycott before he left Samoa. ” Sir George Richardson had then sent a radio message to the New Zealand Government- saying : " My police are ineffective, please send warships here so that I can land some of the marines to support police action.” The warships arrived on February 21st. He had sent to the Commodore a radio message, prior to the arrival of the ships telling him that he wanted some marines to land immediately the ships arrived, as he intended to arrest a few of the ringleaders, and bring them before the Court to punish them. The Commodore had replied that he could not do that, nor could he take any action without the approval of the Government. Nothing could be done, therefore, until after the arrival of the Commodore and his Conference with the Administrator. The ships arrived and no force was landed. The Samoans saw the ships and made the remark : “ They are only scarecrows to scare the birds away ; they will do nothing.” There had been no legislation enabling him even to remove the people in uniform off the streets, and it had been necessary for Sir George to pass an Ordinance declaring Apia to be a disturbed area and enabling him to take action against these demonstrators. He had a s s e m b l e d the — 4 I —

Legislative Council to assist him in passing an Ordinance which was a special measure to deal with the emergency. Two members of that Legislative Council who belonged to the Mau Committee had had to do one of two things : either vote for the Ordinance and show that they wished to maintain peace, order and good government, or vote against it and show that they were in favour of the illegal action of the Mau natives. They had resented his calling the Legislative Council together urgently, as he had given the members only about six hours’ notice—and they had made this a pretext for getting up and leaving the Council Chamber without taking part in the debate. No one, therefore, had been present except the official members, the Commodore of the Fleet and other Naval Officers when the legislation had been passed. While it might have been thought that the presence of warships would be sufficient to counteract the hostile attitude of the Mau, he had realised that it wTould not be sufficient unless the offenders were made to feel that the Government had power to deal with them, and he had been prepared to arrest the offenders, to punish them and do what he thought would bring about peace, order and good government. On the next day, the Ordinance had been issued, together with a proclamation explaining that the warships had not come to fight, but to maintain law and order, and that the two following things must be done : The natives must cease wearing the uniforms and cease boycotting the stores. They wTere to obey the laws and go quietly home. This order had been translated into Samoan and circulated around the villages. He had been powerless under the constitution of civil government to deal with an emer­ gency of this kind in the absence of a law to enforce authority. The natives were still in such a position that in certain matters they could be governed better without constituted laws, but in this case he had had to have those laws. On the following morning—February 23rd—he had arranged for the landing of two parties of men from the ships. The beach was about 800 yards long, and the Mau natives were assembled, in uniform, all along this beach armed with heavy sticks. The Commodore had landed one party from the ships at one end and another party at the opposite end of the beach with instructions that they were to move along, collect the people assembled there and arrest them. This move had been a great surprise to the Mau natives who were collected and put into Vainea gaol. There were about 300 of them. It might interest the Commission to know that many of them had even looked upon the affair as a joke, as some of those who were in uniform at the back of the town heard about it and ran in to join those who had been arrested. In reply to a question by the Chairman, he said that Mr. Nelson had left Samoa at that time. The number of natives that had been arrested was large, but he felt that, if he could see personally all these people of the Mau, he would be able to explain matters to them, convert them and induce them to become law-abiding. The Judge had addressed them and convicted them of intimidation in connection with the boycotting of the stores. He awarded them six months' imprisonment. There were no gaols in Samoa big enough to accommodate such a large number of persons, the one prison in Samoa being merely a prison farm, where prisoners were sent to cultivate the land, and from which they could walk away if they wished. As it was not possible to keep all these people in gaol he had visited them after they had been sentenced to six months' imprisonment and had held Fonos with them for twro or three days telling them of their foolishness, telling them the truth and explaining matters to them. The ringleader had made a most complimentary speech in reply and had said that they had now learned the truth, that the Administrator had shown them that he understood them, and that he had shown them the door to peace and prosperity. Sir George had thought that this might be effective and that perhaps if he said : “ I will take your word ” the trouble would be ended. After they had expressed regret—I knew that nearly all of them had agreed to do as I had asked them—they had said : “ The Governor is right, and we ought to accept wrhat he says ”, On the assumption that they would appreciate his leniency, he had then told them to go back to their homes and observe law and order. On the following day, the leading chief of this Mau party had told him that they did not want to accept anv of the things he had previously conceded to them—or had asked them to carry out, viz :

To use the Powers they had under the Native Regulations Order in Council and act constitutionally by deciding for themselves, through their own district councils, the questions °f “ fine mat malagas ”, division of land, and other native matters. If they were displeased with any Faipule, the district council was to state its reasons and nominate another chief for the position. To end the “ M au” and obey the law's : all parties again to wrork together for the welfare °f their country.

The chief stated that all they wanted was “ Samoa for the Samoans ” and to govern the country themselves. It had been reliably reported to Sir George that the ringleader had openly stated to the Man chiefs : “ If wTe accept the Administrator’s advice, the Mau will end and Mr. Nelson will not be able to bring us the victory—therefore we must not be satisfied with anything less than self-government.” What therefore had been the effect of his action in releasing these offenders ? The boycott ad been stopped ; but the Committee remained in Apia receiving and circulating propaganda . said : “ We will carry on until Mr. Nelson comes back from the League of Nations wdth victory. J — 42 -

M. R a ppa r d asked what happened to the Mau police in blue lava-lavas ? Did they disband>

Sir George R ich a rd so n said that they still continued to walk about, some of them wearing uniforms, but they had ceased their aggressive attitude. The loyal natives had been very much annoyed, and had asked for permission to fight. They said : “ The Government has too many laws. Let us settle this thing in our own way. ” Toelupe and a few of the very leading chiefs had said ; “ You will never govern the country in this way. If New Zealand allows Mr. Nelson to go round spreading stories throughout the world, and if people are not deported and properly punished, you cannot govern them. You ought to do as was done in German times. ” The object of the movement throughout had been to undermine the native authorities and to undermine the Administration. These people had an excellent and democratic organisation set up in accordance with native custom. No more effective or more democratic organisation could be found anywhere than that in Samoa, but owing to the Mau agitation the natives were not making use of it. The Mau was simply waiting to-day for some decision, although it was fully aware that the movement was wrong. Sir George Richardson regretted that it had not been possible to take some action ; he had told the Commission quite candidly from his heart that no punishments had been inflicted because the Government did not wish previously to prejudice the position.

Sir Jam es P a r r said that his colleague’s statement had been made with his full consent, in order that the Commission should be fully informed of everything that was in his mind.

The Ch a irm a n thought that all the members of the Commission would agree with him that the principle of authority must be maintained. The existence of the Mandates Commission should not, in his view, hamper in any way the local authorities in their efforts to maintain order and respect for authority, for such a situation would constitute an unfortunate example for the other territories. He would think it most unfortunate if the three or four hundred persons who had been arrested could believe that they had been able to avoid their sentence of six months imprisonment simply by reference to Geneva. That was the very last thing that the Commission desired. On the contrary, it wished the New Zealand Government to know that it was strongly supported by the Commission in its efforts to maintain order and respect for the authorities. The first duty of a mandatory Power was to maintain order, and to prevent any unjust and illegal assumption of authority by anybody.

M. R a ppa r d thought the position was quite clear. The Commission owed a very great debt of gratitude to Sir George Richardson and Sir James Parr for their frankness. The Com­ mission, as such, knew only the mandatory Power. It judged the acts of the Mandatory and when Sir George Richardson acted, he acted as the mandatory Power. When he was prevented from acting, for whatever reason, it was the mandatory Power which did not act. Although the Commission felt the warmest sympathy for Sir George in the position in which he found himself, it could not split the responsibility between him and the mandatory Power. In M. Rappard’s view, this point was so essential that it would doubtless be cleared up in the report of the Commission. The mandatory Power was in the position of a tutor. A tutor who d id not punish his ward when the ward was obviously insubordinate was not only too good a tutor, but was a bad tutor ; he was not doing his duty. Deference for the League should not prevent the mandatory Power from maintaining good order. A mandated territory was not like a colony. In a colony the mother-country could do what it liked ; it could encourage anarchy if it desired to do so. In a mandated territory, however, its first duty was to maintain order, and its agents must be put in such a position that they could maintain order ; they must be supplied with police, gaols and other things that were necessary. It was most unfor­ tunate that the League of Nations and the Mandates Commission should be invoked by anyone to prevent a Government from carrying out its first duty, which was the maintenance of order.

S ir Jam es P a r r said that there was nothing which had been said by the Commission during the last three days which he welcomed more. His Government would be delighted if the utmost publicity were given to the opinions of the Commission.

The Ch a irm a n said that the Commission wished to know whether the troubles still existed, as appeared to be the case, judging from a newspaper cutting in the possession of the Commission.

Sir James P arr asked to be allowed to deal further with what the Chairman and M. Rappard had just said. It was abundantly clear that the illicit organisation known as the Mau still continued and that the functions of government by the mandatory Power were more or less paralysed. His Government would be glad if the Commission would go so far as to say that this illicit organisation should cease, and he invited the Commission to say in its report that it agreed with the Royal Commission that it was no use for the mandatory Power to endeavour to function with the Mau functioning against it.

The C h a irm a n explained that the conclusions of the Commission were drawn up at the end of th e hearing, and the Commission, of course, could not take the responsibility of intervening in any way in the local administration. Naturally in this case, as in the case of other m andated territories, the Commission would express its earnest desire that, if order had not yet been re-established, it should be re-established as soon as possible. The Commission had not ye taken a decision. M. Rappard thought Sir James Parr might inform his Government that the Mandates Commission was a consultative commission to the Council. Its duty was not to correspond directly with Governments, but to give the Council the benefit of its advice. Its report was of course drafted on its own responsibility, but it was not a pronouncement to the world or to any Power ; it was merely advice to the Council, and therefore anything which the Commission might do must not as a rule become public property until the Council had approved its conclusions. Sir Jam es Parr fully appreciated the position. M. Merlin said that the mandatory Power acted with full freedom and had full authority to administer exactly as it liked ; it had full responsibility. The Mandates Commission did not interfere in any way in the administration, which the mandatory Power carried out as it thought best. The Mandates Commission might afterwards criticise the administration and examine the causes of situations which might arise and it might make suggestions as to what had been done and what might be done in the future. The mandatory Power, however, had full discretion in all cases. Sir James Parr said that these expressions of opinion were most valuable. The Chairman asked if Sir James Parr could tell the Commission something about the instructions given to the successor of General Richardson. Sir Jam es Parr replied that a new Governor had recently been appointed who was supplied with ample white police. He had instructions to continue to use all possible patience with the natives, but to govern firmly.

Dr. K astl observed that, in Article 9 of the Samoan Offenders Ordinance, 1922, it was stated : “ No prosecution for any offence under this Ordinance shall be heard save by the Chief Judge of the High Court of Western Samoa Would it be correct if he were to state in his report on the petition from the Anti-Slavery, and Aborigines Protection Society that a fair trial, according to Article 9, was given to everyone prosecuted under the Samoan Offenders Ordinance, 1922 ? It was stated in the petition that the people prosecuted under that Ordinance had not had a fair trial ; they had not been heard by the Chief Judge of Samoa. Sir Jam es Parr asked with what offences the petition dealt. Dr. Kastl replied that it dealt with local banishment and deprivation of title. Sir Jam es P arr said that the Royal Commission had examined every case and had found, without exception, that the individual had been given full opportunity to explain and to make his defence. Sir George Richardson observed that the Ordinance did not imply that the Chief Judge was personally to try the case. Had Dr. Kastl interpreted it in the sense that he was obliged to do so ?

Dr. Kastl said that he had. The Ordinance said : “ No prosecution for any offence under this Ordinance shall be heard save by the Chief Judge of the High Court of Western Samoa ”. Sir George Richardson agreed. All cases were heard by a Commissioner of the High Court—either by the Crown Solicitor, the Chief Justice, or the Secretary of Native Affairs, who were Commissioners of the High Court. All the cases were dealt with as High Court cases. Dr. Kastl said that the Ordinance referred only to local banishment and deprivation of title.

Sir George R ichardson replied that the Ordinance was strictly carried out.

Officials : Petition of M r. Newton Rowe.

M. Palacios said that the Royal Commission had not dealt with the questions asked during the last session when the petitions wTere being discussed. Apparently the Royal Com­ mission had taken the line that charges should only be investigated if “ they were put forward and supported by complainants Was not this taking rather a narrow view of the terms of reference of the Commission? This would particularly seem to be so as regards complaints of the behaviour of individual officials and other cases. It was clear from an extract from the Western Samoa Budget for 1926-1927 (Appendix I— Details of expenditure for the year ending March 31st, 1925) th at in previous years several cases concerning the behaviour of officials had been dealt with by the mandatory Authorities. He would refer to the following items : £ s. d. 28e Expenses re W. S. Cooper’s case (ex-Resident Commissioner of Savai’i) 19 8 2 28/ G. Bigg-W ither e n q u i r y ...... 99 o o Nothing had been said about these cases in the annual reports and they had apparently not been discussed by the Royal Commission. What was the " Foster Case ” mentioned in several petitions ? Sir George R ichardson said that the Royal Commission had dealt with every case submitted to it by petitioners or anyone else, and had given every opportunity for complaints to be brought before it. — 44 —

M. P a l a c i o s said that last year the Commission had asked for certain information on these and other points, and the mandatory Power had promised to furnish this information. Sir George Richardson said that he had no information other than that already given.

M. P a l a c i o s observed that the mandatory Power had promised further information on the points dealt with in the Newton Rowe petition. Accusations were made, for example, regarding the manufacture of liquor by officials, and many accusations had also been made regarding their morals, etc. The schools, the police, freedom of conscience and public morality had been brought into question.

Sir Jam es P a r r said he remembered being asked for information regarding Rowe last November, and he had no doubt that he had sent on to his Government whatever had been said. He did not remember the exact particulars, but he trusted that the Mandates Commission would find time to look carefully at Mr. Rowe’s petition. It was an extra­ ordinary document. As regarded the questions raised by M. Palacios, he asked that General Richardson might be allowed to take them away with him, when he would see what he could do about them. His Government considered, however, that Mr. Rowe was not a person entitled to a great deal of credit.

Sir George Richardson said he could give the answers quite shortly. With regard to the manufacture of liquor by officials he would point out that every white person in Samoa made a hop-beer, a mild beer for drinking, but he felt certain that no officials made what could be called an intoxicating liquor ; at any rate, they did not do so to his knowledge. With regard to the second question, the expenses mentioned by M. Palacios had been incurred in connection with enquiries into the Cooper case in 1922. It had been found that he had made a serious error of judgment and had caused some trouble with native chiefs, and an enquiry had been held. It was decided that Cooper should be relieved of his position, as he had not the temperament necessary for an official dealing with natives. He hoped that the Bigg-Wither enquiry would not be investigated fully because the unfortunate man was dead. He had committed suicide. Sir George had received information regarding this particular individual and he had immediately set up an enquiry, but unfor­ tunately the man had committed suicide before evidence could be obtained.

Sir Jam es P a r r understood the position as follows : Mr. Rowe had pursued Bigg-Wither. Bigg-Wither had committed suicide, and Rowe had now dragged the matter foward in a petition.

Sir George Richardson said the information regarding Mr. Bigg-Wither had been given to him by a Missionary, but he could not use the information. He had set up an official enquiry which had been unable to carry out its investigations owing to the death of the official. Sir Jam es Parr thought it was largely a question of morals.

Sir George Richardson said that, as regards the Foster case, information had reached him that this man had been guilty of misconduct. He had put the matter into the hands of the police, but they could not obtain evidence. Nevertheless he had sent him away from the country because he knew that the rumours would undermine his influence as an official in the Administration. He wished to assure the Commission that every case of irregularity whatsoever that had been reported to him had been most strictly investigated.

Sir Jam es P a r r said that the Government endorsed that statement.

Close of the Examination.

The Chairman wished to thank Sir James Parr and Sir George Richardson for the frank­ ness and goodwill they had shown when replying to the questions of the Commission. He would recall that the annual report on Samoa was not before the Commission, which was only dealing, at present, with the report of the Royal Commission. The report on Samoa would be considered in October and November next, when he hoped to see Sir James Parr and Sir George Richardson again and to receive from them news to the effect that order had been re-established. Sir Jam es P arr asked whether the Commission would report to the Council of the League on the questions that had been discussed, and if so, when ? The Chairman indicated the procedure to be followed.. The Commission first had a discussion with the accredited Representative, after which it drew up its own report for the Council. The report would be sent to Sir James Parr, who might desire, in his turn, to make comments on the observations of the Commission. The observations of the accredited represen­ tative would be sent to the Council at the same time as the report. Sir George R ichardson wished to say what a great pleasure it had been to him to come before the Commission. He had been made to feel quite at home and he had spoken candidly and had been treated most courteously. He desired to thank the members for their kindness to him. — 45 —

NINETEENTH MEETING

Held on Monday, June 25th, 1928, at 10.15 a.m.

868. Western Samoa : Observations of the Commission on the Report of the Royal Commission of Enquiry on the Events which occurred in the Samoan Islands in 1926-27.

The Chairman informed the members that, in addition to the preliminary draft prepared by M. Merlin and by himself, Lord Lugard had prepared another draft of the proposed report of the Commission on the Samoan question.

Form and Scope of the Report of the Commission to the Council.

M. R appard said that, while he agreed in principle with the other members of the Commission, he did not think it possible to present the observations of the Commission in so concise a form as that- proposed by the Chairman and M. Merlin. Public opinion in New Zealand and other countries attached very great importance to the events that had taken place in Samoa. The report of the Commission would probably be ready before the Minutes of the present session, and the public would expect to find in this report a general summary of the question, a statement of the situation and an analysis of the troubles that had occurred, as well as of their causes, without which it was to be feared that it would be considered that the Commission had neglected the importance of the problem. In his opinion, the note prepared by the Chairman and M. Merlin should be preceded by a short statement. Attention was drawn in this note, in the first place, to the fact that the territory in question was small both in extent and in population. These circumstances, however, did not in any way diminish the importance of this territory for New Zealand, which had no other mandate, nor for the League of Nations, which could not neglect its duties as a guardian on the pretext that the pupil was not very important nor very rich. Nor was the fact that no blood had been shed a reason for not attaching to the events that had occurred all their real importance. Moreover, the Commission knew that the present situation in Samoa was such that the Administration was prevented from carrying out its duties. The observations of the Commission should be clear enough to enable the reader to obtain a general idea of the question without having to await the publication of the final Minutes and without having to refer to press news, which was often prejudiced. The Chairman said that he did not see any reason why the Commission should, in the present case, adopt a procedure different from that which it had adopted in the case of its other reports. On the other hand, it appeared to him that the Minutes might be ready at a date early enough to enable the delegates to the Assembly to make themselves acquainted with their contents. M. Rappard thought that, if any analogy were to be made, it should not be with the ordinary reports of the Commission. There had been no occasion for the Commission to examine at this session the annual report of the New Zealand Government on the administration of Samoa, a report which would be examined in October. If an analogy might be made, it could only be with the Bondelzwarts affair or with the Syrian affairs. The reports on those two questions, however, had occasioned much larger documents than that suggested by the Chairman or even than that which he himself had in mind. The document that he contemplated would be only half as large as the report on the Bondelzwarts affair and would be much less voluminous than the report on Syria. On the other hand, no doubt it was for M. Catastini to inform the Commission of the date when the final Minutes of this session would be published. It appeared, however, that it would be difficult to complete them before the end of the first fortnight in August. They should be ready to be forwarded to the Governments by that date, for after that the delegates of a large number of countries would already be on their journey to Geneva and they would not have time to read the Minutes at Geneva before the opening of the session of the Assembly.

The Chairman begged M. Rappard to state at once the form that he considered should be given to the observations of the Commission on the report of the Royal Commission. M. Merlin thought that it would be well first to have a general discussion on the question. *o doubt, after there had been an exchange of views in the Commission, it would be comparatively easy to conciliate the various points of view. M. Catastini said that he very much hoped that the final Minutes of the session would be ready for September. On the other hand, M. Rappard had suggested that the observations of the Commission should contain a statement of the facts, as had been the j-ase in the Bondelzwarts and Syrian affairs. In those two cases, however, the Commission had not stated the facts, but had dealt with a whole group of particular questions. In the present case, the point at issue, therefore, was whether the Commission should or should Qot follow the sam e system . — 46

M. P alacios agreed w ith M. Rappard that the observations of the Commission should be somewhat more detailed, more reasoned and better worked out. He pointed out that at present, it was a question only of the form of these observations and not of their substance. M. R appard explained that, according to his idea, it was not a question of transferring to the observations everything that had been said by the Commission. What was necessary was that a document countersigned by the whole Commission should give the uninformed reader an idea of what had happened. On th e in v itatio n of the Chairm an, M. R ap p ard sketched w hat should, in his opinion, be the scope of the report of the Commission on this question. A short introduction would indicate the procedure followed by the Commission and would mention the petitions that it had received and the observations that it had made concerning those petitions. The note would also define the task of the Commission and its responsibility and would formulate the desirable recommendations. For this purpose, it would be necessary to explain the situation and to state the cause of the troubles that had occurred. In the first place, it would be mentioned that the population of the territory was about 40,000 and that it included, besides the natives, 450 white and 2,000 half-caste inhabitants. Why had these half-castes been discontented and how had they been able to create a general discontent among the natives ? With regard to the half-castes, the Commission had noted, in the first place, that the discontent was limited to a certain number of individuals and especially to Nelson. There would no doubt be reason to dwell on the character of Nelson, and principally on his vanity, which had perhaps been swollen by the importance that the Administrator and the Government of New Zealand had attached to this person. Probably the half-castes had been excited against the Administration in consequence of the policy followed by the latter of assuring for the natives a better price for their copra, and no doubt also by the prohibition measures. With regard to the natives, the Commission had no ground to believe that, left to themselves, they would have shown serious discontent. How, therefore, had the half- castes been able to stir up the natives Î It should be realised that some of these half- castes, and particularly Nelson, were rich, intriguing, and active in political affairs, that they had no fear of employing all kinds of means of action, and that they had even gone so far as to endeavour to create a movement towards independence with the cry of “ Samoa for the Samoans ”, a movement which, as had been learnt, had already shown itself elsewhere, and on other occasions. It was also possible that the Administration itself had unconsciously provided a weapon for these agitators, on account of certain imprudent speeches that had been made in the Parliament by representatives of the Government concerning the election of natives in representative councils. Tribute should be rendered to the disinterestedness, and to the reforming zeal of the Administrator, while recognising that this zeal had perhaps sought to achieve certain reforms too hastily. In the case of public health, the Administration had done excellent work, which its adversaries had presented to the natives in a false light, as was true also in the case of land tenure and fine mat ceremonies. It should be noted that the Administrator had not always had the means of accomplishing what he had wished and of assisting his authority. He had, therefore, thought it indispensable to increase the severity of his ordinances to impress the natives ; but, owing to the lack of police at his disposal, these had remained without any effect on the natives, and the Administrator had thus failed to maintain order after the discontent had become overt. As to the responsibilities, the Commission should be extremely severe towards Nelson, who had deliberately and almost treacherously stirred up native discontent, without any substantial public motive. The Commission should do what it could to deprive him of the prestige which he had apparently enjoyed with the natives. It should, on the contrary, praise the efforts of the mandatory Power, while making some reservations with regard to the too flattering treatment that it had granted to Nelson, whose prestige it had unwittingly enhanced. On the other hand, it was regrettable that certain desires for independence had been unduly flattered by means of speeches made in the New Zealand Parliament, and that the Administrator had thought it his duty to have recourse to threatening ordinances at a time when he had not the means of enforcing his will. This, moreover, did not in any way justify Nelson or his associates. With regard to the recommendations of the Commission, the latter should in the first place approve Nelson’s deportation, which should be maintained as long as he refused to give securities for submission. It was necessary, moreover, that the mandatory Power should ensure the authority of the Administration by placing at its disposal the police forces, and perhaps the prisons, that were necessary. The Commission would request the mandatory Power to continue its work of reform, while taking prejudices into account, to resort above all to the force of persuasion, sedulously to avoid any appearance of misrepresentation such as that to which the publication of the so-called League of Nations catechism might have given rise, and to rely on the work of time, which did not always seem to have been sufficiently appreciated. The population of both Samoa and New Zealand should be made to understand that neither the Permanent Mandates Commission nor the League of Nations wished to deprive the Administration of the mandatory Power of lts necessary freedom of action — far from it — and that nothing originating in Geneva should ever be allowed to weaken the authority of the mandatory Power. — 47 —

The Chairman thought that the Commission might approve the observations of St. Rappard. For his part, he would only ask M. Eappard to summarise, as far as possible, the observations that he thought should be made in a few sentences which the Commission would examine one by one. M. M erlin noted that the members of the Commission were more or less in agreement on the substance of the question. The case was not the same with regard to the form that should be given to the observations of the Commission. Despite the arguments of M. Eappard, he did not think that the Commission should allow itself to present a statement of the question, and even the summary presented by M. Eappard made evident the dangers to which the Commission would thus be exposed. The Commission would have to give details on a large number of points ; it would thus be compelled to recognise, according to the case, that one or other of the parties was in the wrong, in such a way that, on each point of detail, the Commission would provide new weapons for the adversaries in the event of future controversies. In his opinion, the Commission should remain strictly within the scope of its duty, which was to present observations to the Council, to draw conclusions from the exchanges of views th a t had taken place, and to add recommendations to these. If the Commission were to do more than this, it would expose itself, for reasons which were not of primary importance, to criticism, and perhaps to more serious disadvantages. The aim of M. Eappard seemed to be to inform public opinion. Public opinion, however, would be informed by the conclusions of the Commission, and almost at the same time by the reading of the Minutes. It would see from these that the Commission, on this occasion, as on all others, was fully aware of its duty, and that the discussion had been fully detailed. M. Eappard had very rightly pointed out that the territory should not be neglected merely because it was very small. It was incontestable that the population of Samoa was iiuder the indirect guardianship of the Commission, and logically the arguments of M. Eappard were just. There was, however, a scale of interest which should be borne in mind, that the territory was one of barely 3,000 square kilometers, populated by 37,000 inhabitants, of whom about 450 were Europeans and 2,000 assimilated half-castes. In this microcosm had occurred the events that had been discussed. This agitation had gained some renown, on account of the fact that there was, on the island, a man of recently acquired wealth, enriched as a result of the war, and who had become one of the largest dealers in copra. It was natural that, with his growing fortune, this man should have wished to play an important public rôle. What grievances had really been raised ? Prohibition ? It had applied to 2,500 individuals, and even this was not certain, for many of the half-castes did not live according to European customs. The sale of copra ? This question closely concerned Mr. Nelson and his supporters. However, the measures adopted were restricted, as they only applied to 400 tons out of a total trade of 12,000 tons. No doubt Nelson had regarded this measure, above all, as a threat for the future. Prohibition of residence ? Of 3,000 chiefs these measures applied at the most to only 50 or 70 of them, and the prohibition had not been observed in m any cases. Even though the Commission had to guard carefully in the interests of the population of any territory under mandate, it should not allow itself, under the influence of a well- directed political and Press campaign, to attach to these events an importance which they did not possess. According to M. Eappard, public opinion had been greatly stirred by these facts. In England, however, the complaints of the discontented had only been welcomed by a single newpaper. A good deal of information had been available regarding this matter, but it was certain that Nelson had done much to spread it throughout the world. By attributing too much seriousness to what had happened, the Commission would give the impression that a well-directed campaign might make itself heard as far away as Geneva, and would be sufficient to ensure action on the part of the Permanent Mandates Commission. A statement of Sir James Parr had greatly impressed M. Merlin : “ Everyone is awaiting the decision of the Mandates Commission, and until this decision is known the agitation will continue. ” It would be regrettable for the Commission, an organ of control and not of government, to be compromised in this affair. It should guard against lending itself to the scheming of ambitious men anxious to profit by its distant and necessarily slow intervention. In reality, the whole matter had been directed by three men, and above all by one, Mr. Nelson. To sum up, no statement should be made which might result in dangerous developments, would be desirable merely to give conclusions in the ordinary form of recommendations. No doubt, the Administration had been too weak. There had been a Governor who had Dot immediately taken the necessary decisions. He had not, however, had the means so doing : he only had'forty police for the whole of Samoa. Moreover, M. Merlin pointed out that, in the note that he had prepared in agreement with the Chairman, he had referred and without entering into detail to these various factors : the weakness of the ^ministration, the errors that had been committed, etc., while adding praise regarding other parts of the administrative work which had been done. This note also mentioned kelson without there being any risk of entering into polemics. If, as far as the form was concerned, it seemed to be drawn up a little too diplomatically, it did not differ in substance ,r°m the conclusions of M. Eappard. Moreover, the drafting of this note might be amended ln any way that the Commission might desire. — 48 —

M. P alacios thought that the more the roots, the causes, the complexities of tie question were examined the greater possibility there would be of the Commission reachm» agreement. With regard to the extent and the form of the report to the Council, he would for his part, support M. Eappard’s point of view rather than M. Merlin’s. It would be well to take into account th e excitem ent shown by public opinion, although this excitement should not be exaggerated. The problem implied questions of principle which were of intrinsic importance, whatever the extent of the territory under mandate in question. With regard to the substance of the report, he thought that perhaps it would be well to weigh more carefully the words addressed to the mandatory Power in the draft note of the Chairman and of M. Merlin. It was true that the mandatory Power had done nothing that was in opposition to the mandate. Nevertheless, it had obviously made mistakes and had sometimes given proof of inexperience. The draft reply under examination stated somewhat too finally and exclusively that the mandatory Power had been lacking in decision and in firmness. He agreed, for his part, that there should be an express recognition of the efforts of New Zealand in the task of promoting the culture and civilisation of Samoa. On the other hand, M. Palacios did not agree w ith M. E a p p a rd on the expediency of including in the Com m ission’s rep o rt to the Council a condem nation of certain individuals who were already in exile ; he doubted that it was for the Commission to take such action and thought that it would thus expose itself to the risk of venturing on paths that would be rather dangerous at present, and would be particularly dangerous in the future. In his view, it would be enough for the Commission to concern itself with the facts and, at the most, to take a decision, in conformity with the principles applicable to the case, unfavourable to th e allegations of the petitioners. To a tte m p t to condem n individuals, however, specifying at the same time the reasons for which they were blamed, without having been able to hear these individuals and without weighing each of the proofs and legal considerations raised, might make the verdict an unjust one. It should be rem em bered th a t th e “ M au ” existed n o t only in Sam oa under New Zealand mandate, but also in American Samoa, and in other islands also. It would appear that this was perhaps a nationalist movement, due no doubt to historical and ancient causes. If it were certain that this were the case, the problem would even arise of deciding on the conduct which a mandatory Power of the League of Nations, charged with a sacred trust of civilisation, should follow if it found itself confronted by the gradual or violent pressure of influences working for emancipation. This question could give rise to a long discussion, but one point seemed to be quite clear : it could not go further, in repressing this movement, than the Powers which possessed the remainder of the islands as colonies without any international control. Moreover, it was continually being demonstrated at the present time how movements that were believed in the beginning to be weak and artificial suddenly triumphed, and how individuals who were considered to be undesirable, and were expelled and banished to-day, readily came into power on the morrow. It would be impossible, therefore, too strongly to recommend prudence on this point to a consultative, independent and impartial Commission, such as the Mandates Commission. To sum up M. Palacios’ view, therefore, the report of the Commission to the Council should be m uch m ore com prehensive and explanatory in form , an d m uch m ore conciliatory in tone. M. Catastini asked whether, contrary to custom, the present discussion regarding the observations of the Commission on a report transmitted by the mandatory Power should appear in the Minutes. M. E appard replied that this would depend on the conclusion of the discussion. If as a result of the discussion a short report were to be prepared without any statement of the reasons that had led to it, he would ask that his observation should be recorded in the Minutes, which would thus give the grounds for an opinion of which the recommendations of the Commission would only be a brief summary. If, on the other hand, the Commission were to decide to present a more detailed report, there would be no reason to include this discussion in the Minutes. M. Merlin said that his reasons for not being in favour of a lengthy statement caused him to oppose the insertion of the present discussion in the Minutes. He felt much anxiety concerning the distant influence of what was said in the Commission, and he feared that one or other party would utilise it for their own ends and that in this way the real object of the Commission, namely, the creation of a calm state of mind, would not be realised. Less thought should be given to what should occur in the Commission than to what might occur in Samoa. Dr . K astl associated himself with M. Merlin’s observations. L ord Lugard said that, on the whole, he was in agreement with M. Merlin. If it were sought to draw up too long a report, it would be very difficult to obtain a text a c cep ta b le to all, as the prolonged discussions had already shown. It would be best to seek a compromise, and this seemed possible on the basis of a text somewhat fuller than that suggested by t«e Chairman and by M. Merlin. Agreement should first be reached on the principles which would form the basis of this text. There were three principal divisions of the question on which agreement should be obtained : 1 . All the members of the Commission were, he thought,, agreed in condemning the attitude of Nelson and of his associates. — 49 —

2. They were also, he thought, in agreement in considering that General Richardson had not been sufficiently supported by the mandatory Power, since he had not been given the necessary means of enforcing the laws approved by the Mandatory for maintaining law and order. 3. Further, that the Mandatory had done everything in its power to investigate the causes of the trouble in Samoa, and the actions of the local Government, by appointing an impartial tribunal to enquire into the matter on the spot. As to the conduct of General Richardson, some members appeared to think that he had been too weak, and that he had acted unwisely in associating himself with Nelson at first, only to find out afterwards that he was not a very pleasant individual. M. Rappard had not referred to this aspect of the question and rightly so, for there was disagreement on this point. For his part, Lord Lugard thought that General Richardson had been placed in a very difficult position, and that he had acted with discretion and great forbearance, and had done everything possible in the circumstances. On the other hand, in the course of his hearing, General Richardson had shown himself to be absolutely frank, had indeed been his own critic. However, if there were disagreement on this point, it would be better to leave it entirely on one side. There was another consideration to which attention had not yet been drawn. At the height of the crisis, when the Administrator should have been on the spot, it appeared that the mandatory Power had sent him on a six weeks’ mission to the New Hebrides and other places, and during his absence the discontented faction had had a free hand in directing its propaganda. When the Administrator returned, the agitation had developed and it appeared to have been too late to suppress it. The Commission might perhaps draw attention to this fact, for it was primarily concerned with the action of the Mandatory, which accepted full responsibility for the actions of its agent. M. P alacios was not as optimistic as Lord Lugard regarding the unanimity of the Commission. In any case, however, he was sure that everyone would agree with the views expressed regarding the absolute frankness of Sir George Richardson. He wished to state that he had always considered that Sir George Richardson had acted in the most honourable manner. M. Van R ees said that he had not yet been able to arrive at a final opinion from the exchange of views that had taken place. He had full confidence in the wisdom and in the tact of M. Rappard, and he would therefore like to have before him the text of the note, the scope of which had been indicated by M. Rappard, in order that he might see how, after having made a statement on the situation, M. Rappard would pass to the conclusions and recommendations. Indeed, in his opinion it would not be possible to separate the two elements and to be content with the formulation of conclusions without a preliminary statement. He proposed, therefore, that the discussion should be adjourned until the Commission had before it the text that M. Rappard would be prepared to draw up. The Chairman asked Lord Lugard whether he agreed that M. Rappard, having heard the opinions stated in the Commission, and particularly the observations of M. Palacios, should draw up his note, while modifying, if he thought it necessary, bis original idea. For his part, the Chairman was more closely in agreement with M. Merlin, and in any case he would prefer that this question should not give rise to majority and minority reports. M. Merlin suggested that M. Rappard, after the exchange of views which had taken place, should prepare a note in such form as he should think fit. After this had been done, the note might be compared with that of Lord Lugard and that of the Chairman and himself. A small drafting committee, under the chairmanship of M. Van Rees, might be formed to undertake this work of comparison. M. Rappard might be asked if he could not modify his original idea while taking into account the observations that had been exchanged. M. Merlin added that the important point in the present case was the form to be given to this note and not the substance of the question, on which all the members of the Commission were agreed. The point at issue was whether the Commission wished to present a statement of the situation or merely to formulate a recommendation. M. Rappard thought that to constitute a small committee would be a loss of time. He shared the opinion of M. Merlin that there was agreement on the substance of the question. The only problem that arose was whether the Commission wished that its observations should be clearly understood by the public. M. Rappard, for his part, would be prepared to accept a simple recommendation, on the condition that the grounds for the judgment would be found in the Minutes. If public opinion only formed its judgment on a mere recommendation, the Commission would expose itself to the reproach of having neglected the importance of the question, an importance which was real. This was, indeed, the first occasion on which a mandatory Power had declared to the Commission that it found itself incapable of accomplishing its administrative task. N o doubt Jt was only a question of 40,000 individuals, but their lot was of direct interest to the Commission. A reproach was often made to the League that it was too exclusively European. If the Commission were not to attach to the events that had occurred in Samoa !n the middle of the Pacific the same importance as if they had occurred at the gates of Geneva, the non-European countries would perhaps think that the League was not showing a efficient interest in them. If the Minutes could be ready sufficiently early, and if they contained the present discussion, M. Rappard would accept the proposal of M. Merlin. M. Merlin stated that he had never wished to treat lightly the events in Samoa. If he had referred to the relative importance of those events, it had been in order to place the Commission on its guard against interested campaigns, and to prevent it from giving to these incidents more importance than they deserved. All territories under m andate whatever their size and their situation in the world, should be treated by the Commission equally seriously, but each event should have attributed to it its intrinsic value. The Chairman said that the Secretariat would do what was necessary to ensure that the final Minutes of the session would be ready for September 1st. M. Merlin added that those Minutes would contain the present discussion. Dr. K astl thought that it would be simple to add to the note suggested by M. Merlin a paragraph containing a brief statement of the facts which were at the basis of the complaint, while giving references as regards the details to the Minutes of the Commission. On the other hand, M. Merlin’s note might be slightly modified by a more express condemnation of the agitation of Nelson and of the Mau, and by pointing out, also, that the Administration had issued too many judicial acts and had not undertaken enough practical measures which would have been better understood by the native population. A tribute should be paid to the local Administrator, to his goodwill and to his patience, which had perhaps been excessive. Finally, as Lord Lugard had said, it was no doubt the mandatory Power itself which had the largest share of the responsibility for what had occurred, for it had not given to the Administrator the necessary powers and means, either for putting an end to the agitation at the right moment or for preventing the continuation of this agitation. What interested the Commission was the re-establishment of order and the reinstallation of a real administration in Samoa. M. Van B ees also agreed that the note of the Commission should not contain a statement of the facts if a record of the discussion were inserted in the Minutes. M. P alacios said he was not in agreement with the first part of Dr. Kastl’s speech. The Chairman suggested that Lord Lugard, M. Merlin and M. Rappard should draw up, in agreement, a note in the sense that had been indicated. Mile. Dannevig associated herself with the observations of M. Merlin and of Lord Lugard and thought that the report of the Commission should be short and not detailed, as M. Rappard had first suggested. It seemed to her, on the other hand, that the note proposed by M. Merlin dwelt too much upon the errors of the Administrator. She thought, w ith Dr. Kastl, that it would be just also to pay attention to the errors of the mandatory Power. M. R appard said that he felt a grave scruple upon this point. A mandatory Power acted either directly or indirectly through an agent, but it was hardly possible to make a distinction in this respect, in order to establish, with regard to the errors that had been committed, particular responsibihty for either of the parties. The Chairman said that the Commission should not forget the nature of its task; it had not met to make an investigation and to look for the person who had been responsible for the faults that had been committed, but to send to the Council its observations on the administration by the mandatory Power. It could not distinguish between a Minister, a Parbament, or an Administrator. No doubt the Commission had based its judgment, to certain extent, on the statement of the accredited representative. The Commission having arrived at a decision, the task that remained to be done was to prepare a draft report and the Chairman was convinced that M. Merlin and M. Rappard would have skilful enough pens for this purpose. M. P alacios supported the suggestion that the preparation of the note should be entrusted to a small drafting committee. M. Sakenobe thought that it would be difficult for the members of this drafting committee to come to agreement on a text if the Commission had not first agreed on the principles to be followed concerning the form that the observations should take. M. R appard said that, if it were stated in the recommendation of the Commission that this recommendation had been based on the grounds indicated in the Minutes, he would abstain from entering into the details of these grounds in the report of the Commission itself. The Committee agreed that Lord Lugard, M . M erlin and M . Rappard should draw up a text in common agreement. — 51

TWENTY-THIRD MEETING

Held on Wednesday, June 27th, 1928, at 10.30 a.m.

875. Western Samoa : Observations of the Commission on the Report of the Royal Commission of Enquiry on the Events which occurred in the Samoan Islands in 1926-27 (continuation). The Commission examined the draft observations, drawn up by the Sub-Committee composed of Lord Lugard, M. Merlin and M. R appard, on the report of the Royal Commission on the Administration of Western Samoa. Lord Lugard explained that, when the Commission had met, three different proposals had been put before it — by the President and M. Merlin, by himself, and by M. Rappard. M. Rappard’s proposal had not been presented in writing, but he had suggested the preparation of a much more detailed report. The Commission would remember that M. Rappard had withdrawn his suggestion when he found that the majority of the Commission were opposed to it, on condition that the record of the discussion should be included in the Minutes and that the report to the Council should refer expressly to the Minutes in order that the conclusions should be fully understood. Dr. Kastl had suggested that the various complaints and allegations formulated in the petitions should be simply stated without any detailed observations regarding them. The majority of the Sub- Committee had thought that it would be best to omit altogether reference to these allegations, etc., if it were not possible to go into them fully. Finally, M. Merlin had withdrawn his proposed text, and had suggested amendments to the original text proposed by Lord Lugard. It was therefore this amended document that the Commission now had before it. M. P alacios said that, though he had agreed with M. Rappard as to the importance which should have been attached to the drawing up of the report on the events in Samoa, and though he had ventured to discuss, at the nineteenth meeting, the notes submitted by the President and M. Merlin, it would be easly understood that he could not accept the text now proposed by the Sub-Committee. The draft under discussion seemed to indicate a change in the attitude of the Commission, after certain declarations of the accredited representative. Not only did it not embody the compromise which had been proposed by M. Rappard, but it even omitted the considerations regarding the mandatory Power suggested by M. Merlin. On the other hand, it laid stress on the condemnation of the men in opposition whose ambition and desire for wealth were alleged as reasons for the rebeUion. He was afraid that if that text were adopted by the Commission, universal opinion would interpret it as encouraging further deportations, a more extensive suppression of privileges and the placing of additional obstacles in the way of the presentation of petitions, a more active centralisation and absorption of property and persons, and the strangling of any nationalist movement, however weak, by the severest methods. The system of suppression might in fact become more severe in the islands of Samoa, under the League of Nations mandate, than in those which were exclusively colonies and under the national control of other Powers. In his opinion, the reasons for the unsatisfactory state of affairs were much more complicated, even though the responsibility of the group of persons mentioned in the note was recognised. The colonial history of the whole of Samoa, which was well known, ought to be taken into account. In his opinion, a basis for the exculpation of the mandatory Power and of the gentlemen who occupied the highest positions in its administration should be sought in the complex character of the history to which he had referred. Instead of reflecting an attitude which might aggra vate matters in the islands and which might appear to the great body of world opinion to be in contradiction with the principles of the mandate system, the text approved by the Commission should be capable of a more conciliatory interpretation. The underlying principles were : severity against crimes and disturbances when they arose ; great care in the selection of the administrative staff, especially at the present time when public opinion was excited and likely to become even more disturbed ; and the establishment of legal measures whereby the mandatory Power, without an appearance of weakness but rather with a full consciousness of its duty, might receive w ith sym pathy and discernm ent an y representations which appeared to be justified.

Lord Lugard completed his statement by informing the Commission that the Sub-Committee had not had sufficient time the previous evening to complete the discussion on its report. He had suggested to his colleagues the addition of a new paragraph ; and they had agreed as to its purport, but not as to the exact words. The paragraph was added in order to give expression to the very important comments of the Chairman with regard to certain remarks made by the accredited representative of New Zealand. Lord Lugard then read the document which he and his colleagues on the Sub-Committee had prepared. — 52 —

M. Van R ees stated that he had been quite ready to accept the original proposal of M. Rappard. He recognised, however, that it would be very difficult at the moment to amend the report- in such a way as to make a much more detailed document of it, and he found himself finally in agreement with the three members of the Sub-Committee.

The C haibm an understood that Lord Lugard was proposing that there should be added to the text, in some form to be determined, what he himself had said to the accredited representative on the subject of the responsibility of the mandatory Power for maintaining order. Lord Lttgaed said that this had been his intention.

The Chairman said that, in his opinion, the Commission should seek some way of satisfying the scruples of M. Palacios.

M. Van R ees said that M. Palacios seemed to be completely opposed to the opinion of the majority of the Commission. M. P alacios said that he did not merely possess scruples. His conception of the matter was entirely different. He had noted the unanimous opinion of the rest of the Commission and recognised, as Lord Lugard had said, that a great deal of time would be necessary to remodel the report. He would not therefore embark further upon a long and detailed discussion nor would he make any different proposals. Provided that his observations were recorded in the Minutes, he would simply abstain when the time came to take a vote.

M. Merlin remarked to M. Palacios that the draft drawn up by the Sub-Committee only contained a strong condemnation of the acts of Kelson and the manner in which he had made use of the movement of the Mau and in no part of the draft had the Sub-Committee either condemned or approved the actions of this group, which were considered to be completely outside the question. Perhaps these remarks would calm the scruples of M. Palacios. Dr. K astl said he did not think that M. Palacios ought to attach excessive importance to the movement of the Mau. In his opinion, that movement had not a genuine nationalist character. It was simply the artificial creation of Nelson, who profited by the simplicity of the natives to influence them. If the movement of the Mau had had a nationalist character, he would agree with M. Palacios. But that was not the case, and he asked his colleague to remember this consideration when the question came to the vote.

M. P alacios replied that he had only spoken of the movement of the Mau as an example. In his opinion, the troubles had been due to complex causes.

M. R appard stated that this incident of Samoa was regarded by the members of the Commission in rather different ways. He was amongst those who thought that a state of affairs existed in Samoa favourable to an outbreak of dissatisfaction independently of the acts of Nelson. If he had agreed to the formula adopted by the Sub-Committee, this was in order that a conclusion should be reached, and because he had obtained essential satisfaction in the reference expressly made to the Minutes. He asked M. Palacios, whose ideas on the subject were very similar to his own, also to be content with this reference. It would even be possible to mention in the draft report that very different opinions had been expressed in the Commission and that these would be found in the Minutes. The members of the Commission should remember that there were certainly some principles on which all of them were agreed. As the Commission had not yet begun to examine in detail the document submitted by Lord Lugard, perhaps means could be found to harmonise all these views. M. Palacios ought to remember the fact that the method proposed to the Commission was a very liberal one : The members would agree to the shortest possible document and their various opinions would be found in the Minutes.

The Chairman said that he would put a preliminary question to M. Palacios : What did all the members of the Commission desire ? Simply to restore peace and tranquillity, while safeguarding the prestige of the mandatory Power. All the members of the Commission, M. Rappard especially, had up to that time made concessions in their own views. Evidently M. Palacios was battling with his conscience, but all the members of the Commission should fix their attention on the final object to be attained. Even in asking for the simple insertion of an explicit declaration in the Minutes, was not M. Palacios risking the creation of further trouble f The Chairman was not asking him to agree immediately with the text submitted by Lord Lugard, but to give the point mature consideration.

Mile. D a n n e v i g was not sure that she had realised the exact meaning of the re m a rk s which M. Palacios had made. However, if her colleague thought that the report did not take sufficient account of the sentiments of the inhabitants of Samoa, perhaps several slight alterations could be introduced into it. For example, at the end of the report, the w ords occurred : “ to re-establish peace and prosperity in this small territory Perhaps the adjective “ small ” could be suppressed. Also the expression a little higher up : An impressionable population which before this propaganda had not shown any sign ot discontent ", could be replaced by a less categorical wording. It was perhaps by reaso n — 53 of the fact that she herself came from a small country that she was in a better position to appreciate the possible susceptibilities of th e in h ab itan ts of this territory.

M. Merlin supported the previous remarks of the Chairman. The Commission was neither an institute of moral and political science charged with studying the problems from a theoretical point of view, w ithout considering th e result of th e tru th s th ey unveiled, nor a tribunal having to judge the case, according to the dictates of heart and conscience without considering the possible consequences of the sentence. It was a gathering of persons who had acquired some experience of conditions in far countries. The members of the Commission should always remember, when taking a decision, that they were, so to speak, operating upon a living body which was extremely alive and which reacted very readily. They were not then free to lay down the law and the strict truth, but they ought to take the utmost account of the consequences of their work and of their decisions. For this reason, he asked M. Palacios thoroughly to reflect in his heart and his conscience upon the attitude which he would adopt. If, as the Chairman had observed, the Commission gave the impression that it was divided on such a problem, opposing elements would profit by this to prepare fresh trouble in tiny Samoa, and would find a fresh argument for the continuation of this agitation, which all the members of the Commission wished to be speedily discontinued. It was equally true that the importance of what had occurred should not be exaggerated. These were really village incidents, and it was not necessary, on account of extreme conscientious scruples, to risk defeating the object in view, which was to restore peace to this territory. Replying to the remarks of Mlle. Dannevig, M. Merlin added that it was on his suggestion that the Sub-Committee had introduced into the draft report the words “ small territory ”. He had not done so without reflection. Perhaps the terms would awake certain susceptibilities amongst the Samoans, but it would also recall them to a sense of proportion. They had not the right to involve the Permanent Mandates Commission and the Council and the whole League of Nations in those petty quarrels. As the Chairman, who was widely experienced, had said, if it were necessary in such a matter to confirm the views of those who were in the right, it was not, however, necessary to lead them to attribute an undue importance to themselves ■ again, if it were necessary to contradict them, this would be done in such a way as not to excite ill-feeling. But what was perhaps a more delicate m atter in the work of the Commission was this obligation always to show a wide understanding of psychology. He would like to draw the attention of the Commission, and in particular of M. Palacios, who was an exceedingly scrupulous and conscientious man, to these considerations before he took a decision.

Lord Lugard said that he thought that all the members of the Commission were in some measure in sympathy with M. Palacios, and that they also shared certain of the views of M. Rappard. Personally, he saw at least two practical reasons in favour of the conclusions of the Sub-Committee :

(1) If the Committee had wanted to draw up a summary of the complaints and allegations made in the petitions, and to state the reasons for its decision regarding each one of them, it would have been extremely difficult to agree on the text of a report, as these practical debates had already shown. (2) If the Commission submitted a long report in the sense previously indicated by M. Rappard and suggested to-day by M. Palacios, there was no doubt that hardly anyone would find time to read it.

The Chairman proposed that his colleagues should reflect further at leisure on the text which had been submitted to them, and on the observations which had been exchanged so that they could continue the discussion with more concrete ideas.

M. P alacios said that he thought his colleagues would agree that it was not his custom systematically to cling to his point of view. It seemed to him, however, that there was such a radical difference between the opinion of the majority of the Commission and his own conception of things that, in spite of his utmost goodwill, he had to ask himself whether this discussion could lead to a solution. He asked Mile. Dannevig’s pardon for not having made his remarks very clear, perhaps owing to his insufficient knowledge of French. The declaration which he proposed to ask to be inserted in the Minutes would be clearer. He felt bound to observe that for the majority of the Commission the Samoan question a police question ; he considered it in quite another light. In the opinion of the Commission, there were only three or four people involved ; w ith this he did not agree. The Commission th o u g h t th a t the A dm inistration ought to have acted w ith m ore vigour, while his attitude was that if it were advisable to show severity, in cases of crime, it was necessary not to suppress opinion, but to enter on a well-considered and well-directed path of conciliation. The C hairm an an d M. Merlin had referred to th e effect th a t would be produced in the territory by the final decision of the Commission : M. Palacios doubted whether it was tor the Mandates Commission, an advisory and technical body, to adopt an active rôle, hat was rather for the Council. In any case, no one could ever find in his point of view anything which might foster culpable agitation or revolt or ignore the urgent necessity of ensuring that the principle authority and government should triumph. In this connection, he was only in — 54 — disagreement with his colleagues as regards the methods to be adopted. But he differed from them also on a question of principle. It was for that reason that he had said he would abstain from voting. However, if amendments were presented and if he found in them the means of agreeing with his colleagues, he would do his utmost to do so, provided that his observations were included in the Minutes. The Chairman observed that the final Minutes would be published simultaneously with the report of the Commission. Consequently, those interested would find the ideas of each of the members of the Commission very clearly expressed in the Minutes.

The Commission agreed.

(Further discussion of the question was postponed to the next meeting.)

TWENTY-FOURTH MEETING

Reid on Wednesday, June 27th, 1928, at £ p.m .

878. Western Samoa : Petition of Mr. Newton Rowe : Report by M. Palacios.

M. P alacios submitted his report.1 Lord L ugard thought that it was beneath the dignity of the Commission to examine in detail a petition of this nature, in which a man who had been dismissed from his office on account of incapacity had made a series of horrible charges against men, one at least of whom was now dead. He proposed that the Commission should restrict itself to stating that, after having examined this petition, it had thought it unworthy of further attention. M. P alacios asked whether it was Lord Lugard’s view that all mention of this petition should also be suppressed in the report to the Council. Lord Lugard said that he had suggested the terms he would propose to use. M. P alacios pointed out that if Lord Lugard’s proposal were to be followed, and if it were stated that Mr. Newton Rowe was unworthy of a reply, this would be to go further than the mandatory Power, which had replied point by point to the various counts of the accusation. He recalled that M. Rappard had pointed out at the last session that it was difficult to speak so severely of anyone because he had left the Administration. M. Merlin proposed a new draft. M. P alacios agreed. Following on a suggestion of Lord Lugard, M. Merlin pointed out that the Permanent Mandates Commission might itself formulate a conclusion, but could not modify the conclusions that had been put forward by a Rapporteur whom it bad nominated. The question was completely changed. If the Permanent Mandates Commission did not associate itself with M. Palacios’ conclusions, it might formulate other conclusions if it so wished, and in this case it should nominate another Rapporteur. M. P alacios much preferred the text of M. Merlin’s conclusion to that of Lord Lugard, and was ready to adopt it. T he Chairman explained the position : the Commission had before it a report of M. Palacios, the conclusions of which M. Merlin, with the approval of the author, had slightly altered. The Chairman thought that this report had been accepted by the Permanent Mandates Commission. Lord Lugard, however, had just proposed a modification of the greatest importance. It was for the Commission to see whether it would associate itself with M. Palacios’ conclusions, or whether Lord. Lugard would insist on his text.

Lord Lugard said that he was expressing the same ideas as M. Palacios, while somewhat enhancing their severity ; Mr. Rowe appeared to be a discredited individual who had formulated accusations, some of them of a scandalous nature, against a number of persons, unsupported by evidence. M. P alacios contested the right of the Commission to state that anyone was » discredited person, without having heard and examined facts and proofs. He proposed that he should consider this question with Lord Lugard, so that an agreement might be reached at the next meeting. M. Palacios' proposal was adopted.

1 See page 59. — 55 —

879. Western Samoa: Observations of the Commission on the Report of the Royal Commission of Enquiry on the Events which occurred in the Samoan Islands in 1926-27. (continuation).

The following revised text of the observations of the Commission, submitted by the Sub-Committee, were read :

“ The Permanent Mandates Commission has made a detailed study of the report of the Eoyal Commission of Enquiry into the events which occurred in the Samoan Islands in 1926-27, and of the documents forwarded by the mandatory Power with this report. It also carefully considered the petitions addressed to it by the Anti-Slavery and Aborigines Protection Society, by a certain number of natives through Messrs. Findlay, Hoggard, Cousins and Wright, by Mr. Nelson and by Mr. Newton Eowe. It spent four days in studying these questions and heard the additional explanations given by Sir James Parr, representative of the mandatory Power, and Major-General Richardson. A full account of the discussion of the Permanent Mandates Commission will be found in its Minutes, which it is essential to consult in connection with those conclusions. “ It is the considered opinion of the Commission that none of the charges of any importance against the Administration which have been made in the various petitions have been substantiated, and that none contain any evidence of policy or action contrary to the mandate. “ On the contrary, the local Administration seems to have made praiseworthy efforts to improve the conditions of life of the native population, notably in regard to public health and education, as well as in regard to agricultural production and commerce. “ The Commission cannot too strongly condemn the action of Mr. Nelson and those associated with him, who seem to have been inspired less by a desire for the public welfare than by personal ambition and interests. By unworthy means they have worked upon the minds of an impressionable people who, prior to their propaganda, showed no disquieting signs of discontent. The Commission is satisfied that the Administrator acted with great patience and perhaps even with excessive forbearance and confidence, but the lamentable absence of any means to enforce the law which it was his duty to uphold placed him in an extremely difficult situation. This situation was made all the more delicate by uncertainty as to the attitude of his Government and the delayed visit of the Minister for External Affairs. “ The Commission was happy to note the action taken by the mandatory Power after the open outbreak of discontent. It appreciated the setting up of an impartial committee of enquiry and the communication of its very full report. This report, with the evidence on which its conclusions are based, appreciably helped the Permanent Mandates Commission in forming its own judgment. The presence before it of General Richardson, the responsible Administrator from 1922 to 1927, and the frankness of his statements were also very useful in this connection. “ The Commission is assured that adequate means for maintaining law and order are now at the disposal of General Richardson’s successor, and it trusts that the Samoans, when they realise that they have been misled, will resume their former attitude of confidence in the Administration, and that the mandatory Power will soon be able to re-establish peace and prosperity in this small territory. ” M. Van R ees thought that the second paragraph did not give a faithful picture of the course of the discussion. He would like to see a reference there to the observations of several members as regards the psychological aspect of the problem. Dr. K astl proposed that the end of the fourth paragraph should be modified and that the passage explaining that the position had been made still more delicate by the delay previous to the visit of the Minister for Foreign Affairs should be suppressed.

M. Merlin thought that Dr. Kastl’s amendment should be placed in the middle of the paragraph in question, after the following passage : “ The Commission is satisfied that the Administrator acted with great patience and perhaps even with excessive forbearance and confidence ...”

Then would come Dr. Kastl’s amendment. The text would continue as follows : “ Further, the lamentable absence of any means ...” (no alteration in the remainder).

Dr. K astl thought that the local administration would thus be unduly criticised. He had intentionally chosen the place where he proposed that his amendment should be inserted, because the troubles had resulted from the uncertainty that was felt as to the Government’s attitude.

M. Merlin replied that the zeal in the regulation of the welfare of the natives shown by General Richardson had been previous to the hesitation of the Government. This honourable man, who received, moreover, well-deserved praise, would have no ground complaint concerning the report, but it should, in spite of all, be openly recognised that his zeal had taken a form which a cautious Administrator would have avoided. — 56 —

M. R appard thought that agreement might be reached on a passage which might read as follows : “ With too much forbearance and confidence and zeal for progressive reform, for which the population did not seem prepared. ”

Lord L u g a r d pointed out that General Richardson had learned the native tongue ; he had lived on terms of very good understanding with the natives and bad never instituted reforms unless he had been asked for them beforehand. He saw no ground for the allegation of lack of psychological knowledge of which General Richardson was accused. Dr. K astl thought that ground was to be found in the fact that all his actions had been inspired by this idea of obtaining the welfare of the natives by force.

Mr. G r im s h a w believed that not one of the reforms concerning which General Richardson was accused of excessive zeal could be instanced as having occasioned trouble. He pointed out, further, that none of them had, according to the Administration, been adopted, save at the request of and in collaboration with the natives, as represented in their Fono. M. R appard referred, in particular, to the exhortation for reform concerning “ fine mats.” The native population had seen no difference between this exhortation and a formal Decree and, doubtless. Mr. Nelson had been able to lead them to believe that the Administration was going to intervene in order to abolish a custom which they wished to maintain. Mile. Dannevig asked what was the motive of the Commission in formulating its reproof of the Administrator in the words “ excessive forbearance ”. It seemed to her that it might be preferable to find another expression which could not be misunderstood as the Commission’s advice to act with greater severity in future.

M . R a p p a r d replied that what had taken place should be explained. If the discontent of the Samoans were attributed to General Richardson’s excessive zeal and devotion, the position would be elucidated, and at the same time the Administration would be placed on its guard against similar excesses. M. Merlin pointed out that M. Rappard’s amendment did not mention excessive reforms. It was to the reformer’s zeal that attention should be drawn. It was his clear impression that General Richardson, in his wish to act rightly, had laid down too strict regulations for a population which had a complete horror of any regulation. Conflict had occurred between a military temperament, which liked to see order reigning on every side, and a population which could not stand rigid regulations. Thus had arisen the disagreement for which neither of the two parties could be held responsible.

The C h a ir m a n proposed that M . V an Rees, M . Rappard, and Dr. Kastl should seek a common formula and should present it at the next meeting. This proposal was adopted.

TWENTY-FIFTH MEETING Held on Thursday, June 28th, 1928, at 10.30 a.m.

884. Western Samoa : Observations of the Commission on the Report of the Royal Commission of Enquiry on the Events which occurred in the Samoan Islands in 1926-27 (continuation). The Commission examined the draft report submitted to it. M. Ca t a s t in i explained that the Secretariat had joined in one text the part of the observations that had already been accepted, at any rate in principle, by the Commission, and the text which had been drawn up on the previous evening by M. Rappard and D r. K astl. The Commission examined sentence by sentence the text submitted to it.

M. R a p p a r d thought that, in view of the importance of the subject to be discussed and in order to make the proceedings shorter, it should be decided that the members of the Commission would withhold until the last meeting their final approval of the text.

With reference to the fourth paragraph, Mile. D a n n e v ig feared that the words “ excessive forbearance ” would give the impression that, in the view of the Commission, the Administration of the Mandatory should have shown more severity. She did not think, however, that this was the meaning which the Commission intended.

M. R a p p a r d explained that the passage referred to the case in which the Administrator had taken certain sanctions for which he had not had the means of ensuring respect. A really firm Administration would not generally need to resort to sanctions, while on the other hand a weak authority would need to do so. 57 —

The Chairman added that the attitude that should be taken towards the natives of such territories might be compared with that which teachers should adopt towards their pupils. If a teacher showed signs of hesitation, he might be forced to act rigorously. After discussion, the Commission agreed on a new text suggested by Mr. Grimshaw, Lord Lugard and M. R appard.

Lord Lugard said that Dr. Kastl, before leaving, had urged that the Commission should transfer paragraph 6 to the end of the report. This paragraph constituted in effect a recommendation and read as follows : “ The Commission was informed by the accredited representative that, until the verdict of the League of Nations was received in Samoa, the unrest would continue, and he expressed a wish that the Permanent Mandates Commission should give immediate publicity to its Ariew that the agitation ought now to cease. ”

M. Merlin thought that the Commission should consider the matter carefully before adopting Dr. Kastl’s suggestion. In his opinion, the last paragraph of the draft submitted to the Commission constituted the true conclusion of the report.

M. R appard added that the penultimate paragraph also constituted a recommendation. In his view, if the paragraph that Dr. Kastl had asked to have transferred were to be retained in its present position, it would be necessary to modify the drafting of the second part. If the Commission were to decide that it would make a public statement to the effect indicated, it should do so on its own account and not in order to meet the wish of the accredited representative.

The Chairman wondered whether the paragraph in question should not be entirely suppressed.

Lord Lugard said that the object of quoting Sir James Parr was to show, on the one hand, how completely the function of the Commission — which was purely advisory to the Council — was misunderstood, both by the accredited representative and by the people of Samoa, and, on the other hand, to intimate to the Council that an immediate pronouncement was desired by the mandatory Power. M. Van R ees did not think that this paragraph would be understood in the sense that Lord Lugard believed. It would seem that the Commission was asking the Council to m ake a clear statement, the effect of which would be that the Council would, at a later date, be charged with the responsibility of what was happening at Samoa. Lord Lugard thought that it would be well to draw the attention of the Council to the fact that people in Samoa had quite mistaken ideas as to the relations of the League of Nations and the Mandates Commission towards the administration of a mandated territory.

M. Rappard proposed that, if the Commission decided to suppress this paragraph, there should be added at the beginning of the penultimate paragraph a sentence to this effect : “ On account of certain misunderstandings which seem to have occurred, the Commission ”, etc. In connection with the penultimate paragraph, M. Van R ees asked whether it should not be made clear that it was to the League of Nations that the mandatory Power only was responsible for respect of the law and maintenance of order. M. Merlin said that the view that should be made clear was that the mandatory Power had been mistaken in considering, apparently, that it should await the Commission’s decision before doing w h at it had to do.

Lord Lugard suggested that the addition proposed by M. Rappard should be amended to this effect : “ In view of the fact that it has been said that the population of Samoa was awaiting the decision of the League of Nations, the Commission ”, etc.

The Chairman thought it essential to make clear that the mandatory Power was always responsible for the respect of the law and for maintenance of order. M. Van R ees wondered whether this addition was not superfluous. Lord Lugard recalled that it had been suggested that a paragraph to this effect should be added : “ The Commission appreciates the desire of the Government of New Zealand to avoid, in this case, the use of armed force. ” M. Rappard thought that the Commission might add a remark to this effect elsewhere ln *|le report. All the members of the Commission were in agreement in regretting the weakness which the Administration of Samoa had shown, but the Commission should — 58 consider the distant effects of its discussions. If, in the course of a few years, serious incidents were to occur in any territory, certain persons might refer to the discussion on the Samoan affair in order to discover what had been the Commission’s attitude on that occasion. At the time of the Bondelzwarts affair, the Commission had deplored the excessive use of force.

The Ch a ir m a n replied that a text in the sense suggested by Lord Lugard might completely ruin the effect which was sought by the Commission. M. V an E bbs added that the object of the report in question was particularly the Samoan affair and nothing else. The present text was sufficient to make clear the Commission’s attitude in this matter. The text of the report was approved with some formal modifications. M. P a l a c i o s , while recognising that the text of the Commission regarding the Samoan question had been much improved in the course of the discussions, said that he could not vote for it, because it still contained proposals that were contrary to the principles which he had defended at previous meetings*. He had therefore abstained from voting, and wished his abstention to the recorded in the Minutes without any explanation other than those which were already included therein.

885. Western Samoa : Petition, dated March 29th, 1928, from Mr. Olaf Nelson, and Petition dated March 9th, 1928, from Certain Natives of Western Samoa. The Commission adopted the following conclusions regarding these petitions : “ The Commission considers that none of the charges of any importance made in this petition against the Administration have been substantiated and that the petition contains no evidence of policy or action contrary to the mandate. ”

TWENTY-SIXTH MEETING Held on Thursday, June 28th, 1928, at 5 p.m.

892. Western Samoa : Observations of the Commission on the Report of the Royal Commission of Enquiry on the Events which occurred in the Samoan Islands in 1926-27 (continuation). M. E appard recalled that he had asked for a further revision of the text of the observations on the report of the Eoyal Commission before its final adoption. He believed that the Commission had agreed to this request. He feared that, after the departure of the members of the Commission, the Secretariat would be placed in an embarrassing position if the text which had been drawn up after so many alterations still proved somewhat incoherent.

The C h a ir m a n proposed that any slight drafting alterations in the text should be decided upon by M. Merlin, M. Eappard and himself. This proposal was adopted.

TWENTY-SEVENTH MEETING Reid on Friday, June 29th, 1928, at 10.30 a.m. 89 3. Western Samoa : Petition of Mr. Newton Rowe : Report by M. Palacios (continuation). The C h a ir m a n reminded the Commission that M. Palacios and Lord Lugard had been asked to reach an agreement on the conclusions of the report on the petition submitted by Mr. Newton Eowe. He was under the impression that Lord Lugard wished that in the conclusions, reference should be made to the personality of Mr. Newton Eowe.

M. P a l a c io s explained his report1.

L ord L tjgard said that he did not ask so m u c h for a personal condemnation of Mr. Newton Eowe as for a condemnation of the kind of petition which he had submitted. If, however, the Chairman thought that what was said in the report met the case, and if M. Palacios felt himself unable to agree with him, Lord Lugard would not press the point. The Commission approved M. Palacios’ report and adopted the following conclusions ■' “ The Commission is of opinion that none of the allegations made by Mr. Eowe is worthy of special consideration and that the questions as a whole are covered by those which the Commission has considered in its final report to the Council, with regard to which it has given its conclusions. ”

1 See page 59. — 59 —

895. Western Samoa : Petitions dated July 19th, 1927, and June 8th, 1928, from the Anti- Slavery and Aborigines Protection Society : Report by Dr. Kastl.

The conclusions of the report were adopted. As regards the petition from the Anti-Slavery and Aborigines Protection Society dated June 8th, 1928, regarding the “ catechism ” relating to the League of Nations, the Commission was of opinion that it would be desirable to await the observations of the mandatory Power on this petition before taking a decision.

EXTRACTS FROM THE ANNEXES TO THE MINUTES OF THE THIRTEENTH SESSION OF THE PERMANENT MANDATES COMMISSION.

Petition from Mr. Newton Rowe, dated June 1st, 1927.

Report by M. Leopoldo P alacios.

The text of the petition referred to, and an account of the procedure followed in regard to it, will be found in the Minutes of the Twelfth Session of the Permanent Mandates Commission, more particularly on pages 195-196. Little progress has been made in regard to this question since it was first considered in November 1927. Judgment on the matter had been reserved, pending the receipt of the New Zealand Royal Commission’s Report, which the mandatory Power had promised to send. This report, however, which considers in detail a large number of economic, social, political and administrative questions referred to in the petition, does not touch upon others, such as education, liberty of conscience, and the selection of officials and their morality. In various communications sent by Mr. Newton Rowe to the Mandates Section of the League of Nations Secretariat, he declared that his relations with a Samoan woman and the birth of his child took place after he had left the service of the Colonial Administration and of this he has furnished proof. Sir James Parr and General Richardson, when speaking before the Mandates Commission, added nothing to the statements already made by the representative of the Mandatory Power at the preceding session, or to the observations sent from Wellington on September 13th, 1927, in reply to the petition. However, whereas Mr. Newton Rowe’s petition dated June 1st, 1927, regarding the events reported does not really constitute a specific appeal, but merely formulates complaints with a view to an improvement in the general administration of Western Samoa ; Whereas the Permanent Mandates Commission decided at its last session that personal questions of the kind mentioned, owing to their private and intimate character, only concerned the Commission in so far as they afforded a possible indication as to the general state of the adm inistration ; Whereas the Permanent Mandates Commission, at its present session* will have to submit a report to the Council of the League of Nations on the mandatory administration of New Zealand in view of the troubles which have arisen in Western Samoa and the abnormal conditions of which complaints have been made : I am of opinion, in conclusion, that none of the allegations made by Mr. Rowe are worthy of special consideration and that, for the questions as a whole, they are covered by those which the Commission has considered in its general report to the Council and with regard to which it has given its conclusions. ”

Petitions dated J u ly 19th, 1927, and June 8th, 1928, from the Anti-Slavery and Aborigines Protection Society.

Report by Dr. K astl.

I- Petition dated July 19th, 1927.

The Secretary of the Anti-Slavery and Aborigines Protection Society draws the attention of the Permanent Mandates Commission to recent sentences passed on native chiefs of the island of Samoa under the New Zealand mandate, and their deportation, and states that it would appear from the statements in the Press that several chiefs have been deported, and that the powers of the authorities in regard to deportation have been considerably widened by a new law. He asks that enquiry should be made by the Commission especially as to the reasons t°r these deportations and whether the chiefs have been banished to territory outside the Mandated areas and, if so, to what place. 60 —

In reply to a letter of the Secretary-General of the League of Nations (No. 1/60890/ 9597), the Prime Minister of New Zealand states that, arising out of the continuance of the agitation referred to on page 4 of the report of the Government on the mandated territory of Western Samoa for the year ended March 31st, 1927, the Administrator of Samoa found it necessary to discipline certain Samoans. The punishment took the form of local banishment under the provisions of a local ordinance called “ The Samoa Offenders Ordinance, 1922 This ordinance vested in the Administrator power to order an offending native to remove from one part of the m andated territory of Western Samoa to another part of the same territory. In the meantime, by the passing of the Samoan Amendment Act, dated August 5th, 1927, local banishment by the Administrator requires the authority of the Governor-General of New Zealand in Council. (It is stated that the Administrator’s powers have not been widened.) In his statement, the Prime Minister draws the attention of the Commission to the fact that the banishment of Samoans is included in the lists of complaints which have been made to the New Zealand Government and which are at present being investigated by a Boyal Commission appointed by the Government. The Act of Appointment requests the Royal Commission, inter alia, to enquire “whether, having regard to the Samoan native customs and to the due maintenance of government and order in the mandated territory, it would be prudent and safe wholly to repeal and to abrogate all power to require a Samoan to remove for a definite period from one place on the island to another. ” According to the letter of the Prime Minister of New Zealand and to the special statement made by Sir James Parr, High Commissioner of New Zealand, at the meeting of N ovem ber 3rd, 1927, the Boyal Commission had just finished its enquiry, and the report of the Eoyal Commission would be sent by the New Zealand Government as soon as it is available to the Commission. Therefore the Permanent Mandates Commission postponed its decision until the report of the Eoyal Commission and the observations of the New Zealand Government had been received. The Permanent Mandates Commission, at its present session, carefully considered the complaints laid down in the petition, which have also been specially examined by the Eoyal Commission. The Permanent Mandates Commission came to the conclusion that no chief or any other native had been deported from Western Samoa. The punishments referred to in the petition took only the character of local banishment within the mandated territory. Under the provision of a local ordinance called “ The Samoa Offenders Ordinance 1922 ”, the Permanent Mandates Commission furthermore ascertained that the power vested in the Administrator to order an offending native to remove-from one part of the mandated territory of Western Samoa to another part of the same territory has not been widened.

II. Petition dated June 8th, 1928. The secretaries of the Anti-Slavery and Aborigines Protection Society have sent to the Permanent Mandates Commission a translation of an official circular issued by the “ Administration of Samoa to the people of Western Samoa last year ”. The petitioner expressed the opinion that the terms of the circular, if the text is authentic, more particularly those of Article 21, are inaccurate and misleading and would deprive the natives of mandated territory of a recognised right. The petitioner asked the Permanent Mandates Commission to endeavour that steps be taken to make it clear, in a form which “ may be understood by the people of Samoa, that the right to petition the League of Nations exists, but that it should always be done through the Government of the mandated territory The Permanent Mandates Commission examined the complaints of the petitioner and ascertained that the circular referred to is not an official circular, but a document used by a European schoolmaster for the information of his pupils. The representative of the mandatory Power assured the Commission that the necessary steps would be taken to remove the circular and to give full and proper knowledge to the inhabitants of Western Samoa of their recognised rights.

III. In view of the fact that the Permanent Mandates Commission has at its present session prepared a report to the Council dealing with the general question of Samoan unrest and the complaints made against the local administration, it is not necessary to submit any special conclusions concerning the petition of the Anti-Slavery and Aborigines Protection Society, this petition having been taken into account in the preparation of the report. — 61 —

Extract from the Report of the Commission to the Council. OBSERVATIONS CONCERNING CERTAIN TERRITORIES UNDER A, B AND C MANDATES.

The following observations have been formulated by the Permanent Mandates Commission after consideration of the situation in each territory, in the presence of the accredited representative of the mandatory Power concerned. In order to appreciate the full significance of these observations, reference should be made to the Minutes of the meetings at which the questions concerning the different territories were discussed.

Western Samoa. The Permanent Mandates Commission has made a detailed study of the report of the Royal Commission of Enquiry into the events which occurred in the Samoan Islands in 1926-27, and of the documents forwarded by the mandatory Power with this report. It also carefully considered the petitions addressed to it by the “ Anti-Slavery and Aborigines Protection Society ” of London, by a certain number of natives through Messrs. Findlay, Hoggard, Cousins and Wright, by Mr. Nelson and by Mr. Newton Rowe. It spent several sittings in studying the questions dealt with in these documents and heard the additional explanations given by Sir James Parr, representative of the mandatory Power, and Major- General Richardson, former Administrator of Western Samoa. A full account of the discussion of the Permanent Mandates Commission will be found in its Minutes, which it is essential to consult in connection with the following conclusions1. It is the considered opinion of the Commission that none of the charges of any importance against the Administration which have been made in the various petitions has been substantiated and that none contains any evidence of policy or action contrary to the mandate. On the contrary, the local Administration seems to have made every effort to improve the conditions of life of the native population, notably in regard to public health and education, as well as in regard to agricultural production and commerce. The Commission cannot too strongly condemn the action of Mr. Nelson and those associated with him, who seem to have been inspired less by a desire for the public welfare than by personal ambition and interests. By unworthy means they have worked upon the minds of an impressionable people, who, prior to their propaganda, showed no disquieting signs of discontent. The Commission is satisfied that the Administrator acted with great patience — if not perhaps always with sufficient psychological insight — and showed a forbearance and confidence in the people which may have been misunderstood, and so to some extent may have undermined his authority. The lamentable absence of sufficient means to enforce the law which it was his duty to uphold placed him in an extremely difficult situation. This situation was made all the more delicate by the uncertain attitude of the Government. The Commission has noted with satisfaction the action taken by the mandatory Power in setting up an impartial commission of enquiry and in communicating to the League its very full report. This report, with the evidence on which its conclusions are based, was of great assistance to the Permanent Mandates Commission in forming its own judgment. The presence before it of General Richardson, the responsible Administrator from 1923 to 1928, and the frankness of his statements were also very useful. In view of the statement that the unrest in Samoa will probably continue until the League of Nations comes to a decision, the Permanent Mandates Commission considers it of the greatest importance that it should be clearly understood that the mandatory Power alone is responsible for maintaining law and order in accordance with the mandate. The Commission is assured that adequate means for that essential purpose are now at the disposal of General Richardson’s successor, and it trusts that the Samoans, when they realise that they have been misled, will resume their former attitude of confidence in the Administration, and that the mandatory Power will soon be able to re-establish peace and prosperity in Western Samoa by a policy both firm and liberal.

OBSERVATIONS ON PETITIONS

'The Commission, in the course of its thirteenth session, considered the petitions mentioned below, together with such relevant observations or information as were furnished m writing by the mandatory Powers or orally by their accredited representatives. Each °f the petitions was, as usual, reported on in writing or orally by a member of the Commission. After discussion, the conclusions of the reports, which are printed below, were adopted by the Commission. The written reports are reproduced as annexes to the Minutes1.

1 Document C.341.M.99.I928.VI. 62 —

5. Western Samoa.

(a) Petition of Mr. Newton Eowe, dated June 1st, 1927 (document C.P.M.571). Observations of the New Zealand Government, dated August 3rd, 1927, and September 13th, 1927 (documents C.P.M .626 and 657). Eeport (see Minutes, Annex 5 B).

Conclusions :

The Commission is of opinion that none of the allegations made by Mr. Eowe is worthy of special consideration and that the questions as a whole are covered by those which the Commission has considered in its final report to the Council, with regard to which it has given its conclusions.

(b) Petition of the “ Anti-Slavery and Aborigines Protection Society ”, dated July 19th, 1927 (document C.P.M.620). Observations from the New Zealand Government, dated September 19th, 1927 (document C.P.M.662). Eeport (see Minutes, Annex 5 G).

Conclusions :

In view of the fact that the Permanent Mandates Commission has, at its present session, prepared a report to the Council dealing with the general question of Samoan unrest and the complaints made against the local Administration, it is not necessary to submit any special conclusions concerning the petition of the “ Anti-Slavery and Aborigines Protection Society ”, this petition having been taken into account in the preparation of the report.

(c) Petition dated March 9th, 1928, from certain natives of Western Samoa (document C.P.M.718). Observations from the New Zealand Government, dated April 24th, 1928 (document (C.P.M.718), and from General Eichardson, dated June 15th, 1928 (document C.P.M.742).

Conclusions :

The Commission considers that none of the charges of any importance made in this petition against the Administration have been substantiated and that the petition contains no evidence of policy or action contrary to the mandate.

(d) Petition, dated March 29th, 1928, from Mr. Olaf Frederick Nelson. Observations from the New Zealand Government, dated April 19th, 1928 (document C.P.M.719), and from General Eichardson, dated June 15th, 1928 (document C.P.M.744)_

Conclusions :

The Commission considers that none of the charges of any importance made in this petition against the Administration have been substantiated and that the petition contains no evidence of policy or action contrary to the mandate.