Officials and Prohibition.

The Chairman's question was undoubtedly prompted by the fact that Sir James Parr was then speaking on the subject of Prohibition and the resentment of the Europeans to it. His reply is one of the evasive aswers I have referred to. If Prohibition has been a cause of dissatisfaction with the Europeans for some years, as stated by Sir James Parr, why was it not mentioned in the Annual Reports? My answer to this is: "For the same reason that the disaffection of the Samoans arising from the unwarranted banishments, deprivation of chiefly titles, and general degradation of leading Samoans was withheld from the Mandates Commission in all previous reports." It was much more satisfactory for the mandatory to report only the good progress it claimed to be making in other matters.

"M. van Rees asked whether the complaints against Prohibition had come only from private persons, or had the officials associated themselves with those complaints? Sir George Richardson replied that the officials had not complained."

When the Hon. G. E. L. Westbrook discussed Prohibition as it affected the Whites in a meeting of the Legislative Council some time ago, Sir George Richardson said that if Mr. Westbrook would present to him a sound scheme where Europeans can have their liquor without the Natives getting it, he would be prepared to consider it. Neither Mr. Westbrook nor his elected colleagues took the matter up, but General Richardson's leading officials promptly came together and formulated a scheme. See Royal Commission, page 31: page 6

Robert Joseph Carter sworn and examined.

Mr. Slipper: What is your occupation?—Commissioner of Labour.

Some time ago you and others took some interest in this matter of Prohibition, did you not?—Yes.

What was done?—A meeting was held by the heads of the Administration departments.

And what was done when that meeting was held?—A scheme was formulated and put before the Administrator.

The Chairman (Sir Charles Skerrett): Is that scheme in writing?—It is, sir, but at the present time I consider that, as we have had no reply, it is more or less a State document.

There is more of this evidence, which space will not permit here, but this "State" document and the covering letter from the official heads of the administrative departments will be found in Exhibit IX., pp. 419-420, of the Royal Commission's Report. No evidence whatever was tendered by the Administration in support of Prohibition; on the contrary, at his own suggestion, General Richardson's leading officials had worked up this scheme for a regulated issue of liquor. Yet the General tells the Mandates Commission that his officials had not complained about Prohibition!

Mr. R. J. Carter, besides being the Commissioner of Labour, has filled many important leading posts in the Administration and has on more than one occasion acted as A.D.C. to the Administrator.

The Chairman was referring herein to the report of the Royal Commission. Yet not one of the members of the Mandates Commission questioned Sir George Richardson further on this particular point.

As Prohibition has nothing whatever to do with the Native unrest, I am very reluctant to discuss this subject in connection with the Samoan trouble, but the importance placed on the subject by the representatives of the Mandatory makes it essential for me to show that even in this matter the representations made to the Mandates Commission by the New Zealand delegates are utterly unreliable and misleading.