Other formats

    TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

Samoa Under the Sailing Gods

Chapter viii — Prohibition

page 105

Chapter viii
Prohibition

I

For the first year it seems that Prohibition to a considerable extent did prohibit; and in 1921 there was a petition to the King from the Fono of Faipules, or Samoan Native Advisory Council, praying that the Mandate be taken from New Zealand and their territory administered direct from the Colonial Office in London. It has been denied, but it is beyond doubt that there was European influence behind the petition. But in this matter the Beach were merely turning the tables on the methods adopted in the first instance by Sir James Allen.

It was about this time that Samoa was visited by Professor Macmillan Brown, from New Zealand, and his description, said to be penned then, of the current grievances, to be found in his Peoples and Problems of the Pacific, is somewhat interesting. He has no hesitation in deciding that "the Olympians of the Beach" are particularly annoyed because they have been "denied their nectar."

"The oceans of beer and champagne and whisky that flowed under German rule kept the Beach only half conscious of its grievances and half capable of expressing them. Now these oceans are dried up except in surreptitious channels, and there is no liquid oblivion to lubricate the parched throat of the Beach or make it forget its grievances…. Since that nip was denied, the Beach has become vocal with mighty oaths and intolerable wrongs: the Administration has done nothing but commit blunders."1

These "blunders," the Professor notes, include the introduction of a fine water supply, the making of a liquorless hotel for officials pay, the production of an annual balance-sheet, page 106"though the Beach declares that it is rotten," and the keeping of obligations under indentured-labour contracts. "In short, its cup of iniquity is overflowing, when it ought to be 'the cup of kindness' that should be so."

"Now, the Olympians of the Beach are shrewd enough to know that they will never get their nectar back by direct appeal for its reinstatement to the League of Nations, or to the British Government. So they have got to prove that the New Zealand Administration is rotten beyond redemption; but they have a suspicion that their proof is not above suspicion, and that even if it were it would not work their purpose, unless Japan is on her old track and wishes to extend her empire south of the Equator. What they do know is that mandates are intended to protect the people of the mandated countries, and that the Beach forms but a small percentage of the people of Samoa; they also know that not only the League of Nations, but the British Government, lays itself out for protecting the aboriginal population. So the Samoan chiefs have got up a petition to the King to take over the government of Samoa from New Zealand, appoint a Governor, and the Samoans and the Beach will do all the rest; no trouble at all, thank you! It is here that the cloven hoof appears; along with the chiefs will act 'some of the old and experienced white residents.'"

The writer continues again:

"But the Olympians of the Beach have lost their nectar, and the only possibility of getting it back is through the leverage of a native petition, although the natives are quite satisfied with their ceremonial kava, and have no deep interests in the question of whisky or no whisky. Hence these tears; and hence for the first time we find the Beach assembly of the gods dealing tactfully with the natives and carrying out Dr. Solf's wise maxim: 'The fundamental rule for the treatment of the Samoans is, they can be guided but not forced.' … Had Dr. Solf lived to see the nectar denied these gods, he would have seen the unbelievable, the Beach controlling itself and its language so well as to guide instead of forcing the natives; for their nip is a life-and-death question with them, and if the British Government replaces New Zealand there is a chance of getting Prohibition cancelled; the brewers and distillers have great influence in the British Parliament, and Pussyfoot page 107Johnson has his work cut out for him. But it would never do to run that horse under its own name; so the two that have to run before the British Government and the League of Nations are Incompetence of the Administration and Native Discontent. Unfortunately they are hobby horses, and not real flesh and blood, as anyone can see for himself by spending a few weeks in Samoa unshepherded. The preternatural effort of the Beach assembly of the gods at unanimity and tactful self-control and shrewd wisdom deserves a better fate than it is likely to meet."

The fate of the petition, I believe, was that His Majesty King George, or his Ministers, replied in effect that neither the King nor the New Zealand Government had the power to transfer the Mandate, and that it was his wish that the Samoans should reconcile themselves to New Zealand rule.

II

In the same year, the Hon. E. P. Lee, Minister for External Affairs, New Zealand, visited Samoa. He was faced with grievances, and lightly passed them by. A deputation of leading citizens, representing the Chamber of Commerce at Apia, later went to New Zealand to place matters before the then Prime Minister, the Hon. W. Massey. But nothing came of that either.

III

In the Second Annual Report to the League of Nations on the mandated territory of Western Samoa (April 1, 1921, to March 31, 1922) it is stated: "There is little doubt that a fair amount of surreptitious brewing of beer and manufacturing of spirits of a kind, and importing of spirits, is going on; the vigilance of the police keeps these almost inevitable offences fairly well within bounds." And then comes the following remarkable admission: "At no time do the natives appear to have acquired a taste for liquor."

"Prohibition," continues the Report, "being a contentious matter, has caused a good deal of hostile and bitter feeling among the white residents (even moderates) in and about Apia."

page 108

IV

In the middle of 1922—when first I knew the islands—home-brewing could scarcely be called common, although there had recently been convictions of white planters for illicit distillation. But towards the end of that year "How's your brew?" became—in semi-seriousness—the usual salutation, and recipes were exchanged and symptoms of their brews remarked, by people meeting, with the same avidity with which old dames might discuss their cures and physical ailments. It was then that the edict had gone forth, unofficially, from the Administrator's office, where I was then working, that home-brewing in excess of the alcoholic content (3 per cent.) allowed by law was to be tolerated, in the case of Europeans manufacturing for their own consumption. This, of course, included half-castes.

It was said that were the Europeans prevented brewing beer or making wine they would drink something worse, such as "cocoa-juice"—a virulent spirit produced of a product of the fermenting-boxes and sold by Chinese coolies working on cocoa-plantations, but going now out of fashion. For the same reason it was decided not to attempt to prohibit the importation of "All-in-One"—a mixture of malt and hops made in prohibitionist San Francisco, put up in tins of about two pounds content, and looking like molasses. For this there was a large sale in the stores. It was merely necessary—no directions being given—to tip one tin to four gallons of water, hot or cold, add three or four pounds of sugar, and a very potent beer resulted in four or five days. Wine, from rasins, was made by a somewhat similar method. Home-brewing now facetiously was termed "The Third Industry of Samoa": coconut-and cocoa-planting, on which all else depended, being allowed respectively the first and second place. An era of comparative contentment set in. The "cup of kindness" again did overflow.

V

On July 25, 1923, at Geneva, during a meeting of the Permanent Mandates Commission at its Third Session, Sir page 109Frederick Lugard, the British member, said—"that total prohibition was now in force in Samoa. It would be interesting to hear how this regime had succeeded in regard both to Europeans and others." This observation apparently elicited no reply, and on August 3rd "Sir F. Lugard inquired whether the total prohibition imposed in Samoa had proved a success. Sir James Allen replied that its unpopularity was less than formerly."

1 This and the following extracts from Peoples and Problems of the Pacific, by Professor Macmillan Brown, are quoted by permission of Ernest Benn Ltd.