Evasive Answers and Reckless Allegations.

A perusal of the Minutes of the June Session of the Mandates Commission in its discussion of the present situation in Samoa would be most interesting to anyone versed with the causes of the unrest. One of the most striking features is the evasiveness of the answers of both the New Zealand representatives; another is the large number of reckless allegations and charges again made, which neither of these representatives would have the least hope of substantiating if they were cross-examined by a representative of the Samoan people. The few examples of these which I now take the liberty to give herein, could be extended throughout practically the whole of their evidence if space permitted.

The prohibition of the consumption of alcoholic liquor by Samoans was made law about forty years ago. This was when Samoa was a Kingdom and her autonomy recognised and guaranteed by Three Great Powers—America, Great Britain and Germany. Neither the Samoans nor the Europeans in Samoa have ever at any time applied for a reconsideration of this law.

"Prohibition," as it affects the Europeans, came in force on the inauguration of what was called "civil" rule, or "Mandate," in May, 1920, nearly five years after the New Zealand military occupation, but three years before the advent of General Richardson. Yet the New Zealand authorities have proclaimed to the world at large that "Prohibition" and the "Copra trade" are the fundamental causes of the present Samoan unrest.

Sir James Parr informed the Mandates Commission: "I should like to point out that the Order of Reference of the Royal Commission was very wide; it covers all complaints. ..." He then quotes a finding of the Royal Commission that "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," but he carefully omitted earlier passages of the Royal Commission's findings on "Prohibition" wherein the following appears:—"The consideration of this matter is not within the scope of the inquiry which we were directed to hold, and we are not entitled to express an opinion upon it." Perhaps Sir James was not willing to disclose to the Mandates Commission the limitations of the scope of the Royal Commission inquiry, or one of the inconsistencies in the findings of that Commission.