Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

Samoa at Geneva : misleading the League of Nations : a commentary on the proceedings of the Permanent Mandates Commission at its thirteenth session held at Geneva in June, 1928

Opposition Members Re-Elected

Opposition Members Re-Elected.

Feeling confident that the Minister's visit would result in making representation of the people in the Legislative Council more effective, great interest was taken by the European community in the elections of November 30th, 1926. When it was known that the Administration was putting up three candidates to oppose the sitting members, the people organised, and the retiring three were re-elected by a two-to-one majority, despite the fact that a large percentage of the electors were Government officials.

This matter was discussed at the last meeting of the Mandates Commission, and appears on page 10:—

"Sir George Richardson 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 James Parr 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. Rappard asked when and by what constituency Nelson was last elected to the Legislative Council?

"Sir James Parr 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. Rappard asked whether the accredited representative had the impression that if Mr. Nelson were to stand for re-election now, he would not be re-elected?

"Sir James Parr replied that General Richardson had assured him—and that was his only means of knowing—that the feeling among the white 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 Richardson 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."

page 17

The document referred to herein has not been made public, perhaps for very good reasons. A large number of the signatories would be found not to be on the electoral roll, and I know of several cases where people were pressed to sign. One British planter came to tell me that he was in rather a quandary as to what to do. He held a lease from the Government and was under certain other obligations to them. He was now asked to sign a document expressing confidence in the Administration. He had no confidence in the Administration, but what was he to do under the circumstances? Knowing the conditions which he might be subjected to if he did not sign, I advised him to "sign." In spite of all that has happened, I should be quite willing to challenge Sir George Richardson's remarks by accepting nomination at the next elections, due in November, 1929, if circumstances permit.

Reverting to the public meetings of October and November, 1926, I say again that they did not cause the agitation. On the contrary, they averted a disaster. The Government have until lately given out that these meetings were attended by a very few, and there were no leaders of the Samoan people present. Now Sir James Parr, speaking to the Mandates Commission on the public meetings (page 21) stated:—

"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."