I

Soon after the publication of the Report of the Royal Commission in New Zealand, and before the full text had been released in Samoa, it was announced that three members of the Citizens' Committee—the Hon. O. F. Nelson, senior elected member of the Legislative Council; Mr. Gurr, the editor of the Samoa Guardian, a new publication; and Mr. Smyth, a leading merchant of Apia—were to be deported under the Bill passed by the New Zealand Parliament in 1927.

The charge against Mr. Smyth was that he was a member of the Mau.

The three accused appeared before the Administrator, as required, and protested that they should be called upon to prove negatives. Nothing more specific was charged against them. A few days later they were informed in writing that they had "not disproved the charges," and deportation orders were served upon them, for periods of five, five, and two years respectively. Mr. Westbrook, Mr. Williams, and Mr. Meredith, the remaining European members of the Citizens' Committee,¹were called before the Administrator and asked what they proposed to do to disperse the Mau.

II

The natives, with difficulty dissuaded from opposing the deportations with violence, became more belligerent. A Mau "Police Force" was formed, acted as a guard of honour to Mr. Nelson when he went aboard his ship, and its uniformed pickets enforced a boycott of Apian stores and trading-stations. A poll-tax to the value of.£20,000 was already overdue, and it was intended further to cripple the Government by curtailing Customs and Excise revenue. All the while the Samoans bluntly refused to meet the Administrator or the Faipule Fono. On February 18, 1928, it was stated that a serious position had arisen, and the cruisers Diomede and Dunedin were hurriedly despatched to the islands from New Zealand. It was announced officially that the maintenance of peace was improbable.

On February 27th a censorship over telegraphic messages had been established in Samoa, and various conflicting statements reached the outer world. It was announced first that the Administrator had offered clemency to the Mau prisoners and that the outlook for peace was hopeful. Then that the prisoners had rejected the terms, demanding self-government under the British flag; which proposal they were informed was seditious. Next, that the Faipules had "decided on legislation affecting the Samoans," and meetings with the Administrator would be held to bring all factions into unity, and a big gathering then held near Apia to terminate the Mau movement. On the following day the four hundred Mau prisoners were suddenly released—"the Administrator, recognizing that they had been misled by non-natives, being disinclined to continue their imprisonment." On the day after, it was proclaimed that the Administrator's term of office, then expiring, would not be renewed. And four days later (on March 14th) came a lying message—which the Prime Minister of New Zealand had subsequently to repudiate and try to explain away as the work of a "junior administrative official"—anticipating a grave crisis in which the "loyal natives" were to take "effective action," and blaming the naval forces for their "inability to detain the Mau prisoners on the Peninsula of Mulinuu" and for failing effectively "to protect the Administration while the police were endeavouring to arrest the rebels." Insults to white women, it was falsely stated, were becoming of common occurrence.

This period was further disgraced by sudden inexplicable panics among certain of the white officials, who, led by the Aide-de-Camp, fled suddenly on occasion to the hills at dead of night and took refuge behind barbed-wire at the Wireless Station.

page 238

III

The following extract from a speech made by Sir George Richardson to the Mau prisoners while interned at Mulinuu is worthy of record. "The Japanese Government," he said, "nearly took possession of Samoa, and things would have been very bad for you, but the British Government sent in a force and protected you from falling into the hands of bad Governments. Should New Zealand go away from Samoa, the Japanese will take possession of you, and you will be very sorry afterwards."

He made small impression on the Mau prisoners, who informed him through the mouth of their spokesman Tamasese that they were well acquainted with him and his methods.

General Richardson possibly was right about the Japanese. There are some very ugly rumours afloat in the Pacific concerning conditions in the Japanese mandated territories. But the views, none the less, of the Japanese Government on this use of itself as a bogey would be decidedly interesting.

IV

Early in April the second cruiser returned from Samoa, having left a party of Marines, and the New Zealand Government announced the decision to recruit a military police force for despatch to the islands.

The following week General Richardson departed, driving along a back road to Mulinuu, where there were but few to see him off. During that week 2,000 Mau police demonstrated in an uncompromising manner in Apia. On his return to New Zealand, General Richardson said that the Royal Commission which inquired into the causes of the unrest in Western Samoa failed to end the trouble because the chief conspirators led the natives to believe that they possessed great power and could reverse the Commission's decisions. He stated also that there had never been any desire on the part of the natives to change the flag which flew over Samoa. He was sorry that there had been any suggestion of this, and declared that it was merely a "story invented by conspirators on Apia beach, who button-page 239holed tourists and gave them dope." Where and when the suggestion referred to had been made, I am unable to determine.

V

Towards the last week in April, Sir George Richardson sailed from New Zealand for Europe, where he was to represent the Mandatory Power at the June Session at Geneva of the Permanent Mandates Commission. Prior to his departure he stated that until eighteen months ago the Samoans were satisfied and grateful. The cause of the trouble was not discontent among them, but the actions of certain persons in inciting the minds of ignorant natives to believe that they had legitimate grievances.

The same boat which carried the ex-Administrator carried also a petition to the League of Nations, on which appeared nearly eight thousand signatures, being 93 per cent, of the Samoan tax-payers, protesting against the New Zealand administration.

On May 1st the Prime Minister of New Zealand, Mr. Coates, took over the portfolio of the Minister of External Affairs, and assumed control of the mandated territory himself. Colonel Stephen Allen—the mayor of a small township in New Zealand—became Administrator of Western Samoa.

VI

According to the Daily Telegraph of June 20, 1928, in a report from its own correspondent in Geneva—

"The question of Samoa, where New Zealand, as the Mandatory Power, has done her best to improve conditions, came before the Mandates Commission to-day. (The 19th.) Major-General Sir George Richardson, Administrator of Western Samoa, and Mr. Nelson, who was prominent during the recent trouble there, were both present at to-day's session. A week ago Mr. Nelson, who was expelled from Samoa for five years, arrived in Geneva, established himself in one of the palatial hotels, and with the help of lawyers, including one Genevese, is engaged in spreading propaganda against the New Zealand mandate over Samoa. He presented to the page 240Mandates Commission a printed report of sixteen pages, with numerous annexes containing accusations against Sir George Richardson and the New Zealand Administration. Mr. Nelson alleged that the whites objected to the prohibition of alcohol and to the copra monopoly, while the natives complained of the taxation and of the deportation of malcontents without trial. These accusations have already been dealt with by the Royal Commission, which spent six weeks in Samoa, and reported to the New Zealand Government, its report being now before the Mandates Commission. It now remains to be seen what will be the judgment of the members of that body."

At the opening meeting, with respect to Samoa, of the Mandates Commission—at which, despite the Daily Telegraph's report, neither Mr. Nelson nor General Richardson were present—Lord Lugard,¹ the British member, endeavoured, unsuccessfully, to get his colleagues to agree that none of them would grant an interview to Mr. Nelson. (By ruling of the League Council² no petitioner is able to appear before the Mandates Commission in person.) Lord Lugard announced that he himself had already refused an audience to Mr. Nelson.

VII

On June 20, 1928, Sir James Parr, High Commissioner for New Zealand in London, and Major-General Sir George Richardson, former Administrator of Western Samoa, "came to the table" of the Permanent Mandates Commission at Geneva.

The Chairman, after an interchange of compliments, asked, on behalf of the Commission, how far the Government of the Mandatory Power endorsed the findings of the Royal Commission. I will quote now from the Minutes:

The two Commissioners who had formed the Commission, Sir James Parr went on at some length to say, were men of the very highest reputation in New Zealand.

"The Chairman 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 military, (b) of a legislative, nature? (3) What measures had been taken to calm the agitation? (4) What was the present position?"

There followed a short discussion on procedure.

"Sir James Parr said that he would reply in full to the questions and would, at 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 inquired 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 page 242of 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 deprivation 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 organization—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 of amount medicine—I hope the General will pardon me—is drunk, I am told, whether for the good of their healths 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 difficulty, to which I should like specially to refer. It is said "An Englishman likes his beer, and why should he not 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….

"'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 page 243succeeded 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 interests of the natives.

"'I do not think I need say any more with regard to that. The Royal Commission found as follows: "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.'"

There followed a discussion here as to whether Prohibition could really be considered as one of the fundamental causes of the unrest. Sir James Parr replied in the affirmative.

"The Chairman 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 James Parr 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 Chairman 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.

page 244

"Sir James Parr asked about whose feeling of discontent the Commission desired information. Was it the white man's or the Samoan's?

"The Chairman replied that it was for the accredited representative to tell the Commission this. Perhaps both or neither were discontented.

"M. Rappard recognized 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 authorized the consumption of liquor, would the whites really be more contented?

"Sir James Parr replied that undoubtedly they would be.

"M. Rappard inquired why they had not shown their discontent during the time that prohibition had been in force?

"Sir James Parr replied that they were always showing their discontent.

"M. Rappard remarked that this had not been mentioned in the reports."

Apparently neither the Chairman, Sir James Parr, nor M. Rappard had read the reports.

"Sir James Parr explained that the whites had not made an agitation or organized 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 very 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. Rappard 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 James Parr replied that there was no 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. Van Rees asked whether the complaints against prohibition had come only from private persons, or had the white officials associated themselves with those complaints.

page 245

"Sir George Richardson replied that the officials had not complained."

This, on the part of the ex-Administrator, was sheer prevarication. In the Appendix to the Reportof the Royal Commission, and referred to in its evidence, was a document dated May 16, 1927, drawn up by the heads of departments of the Samoan Administration and addressed to General Richardson, setting forth the ill effects of Prohibition on the Samoan population. (This, of course, was a sop to the white people, after the native unrest arose.) I reproduce it in the Appendix¹of this book. Yet although that document lay on the table before them, not a single member of the Mandates Commission remarked upon it! That ended the discussion on Prohibition.

Later in the proceedings the Chairman stated that they had all read the Report of the Royal Commission: "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 foregoing will serve as an illustration of the way that the Mandates Commission revealed its laziness and incompetence and suffered itself to be put off with evasive answers, many of them demonstrably false.

VIII

The following was the report from the Permanent Mandates Commission to the League Council:

"The Permanent Mandates Commission has made a detailed study of the report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry 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 page 246the 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 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 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 productions 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 inquiry 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 page 247of 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 realize 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."