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

Native Representation

Native Representation.

Readers will note:—"Sir George Richardson considered that the original cause of discontent among three Europeans had been their desire for more power—the power to govern the country, to have something to say on Native matters." Why was this "original" cause introduced as an afterthought? The three Europeans there referred to can only have been the three elected members of the Legislative Council. As a matter of page 10 fact, no Native legislation can become law before it had passed the Legislative Council, so the elected members already had a say in Native matters. But the elected members had consistently introduced in the Legislative Council the matter of Native representation in that council, so that they—the Native representatives—would have the opportunity to give the Council the advantage of the Native viewpoint in matters affecting them. As the Samoans comprise about 95 per cent, of the total population and contribute the bulk of the Government revenue, practically all legislation affects them, and they should be represented in the Legislative Council by members of their own race and choosing, such as is done in Fiji and Tonga.

In the discussion of this matter by the Mandates Commission (page 18), Sir George Richardson informed the Commission:

"He had proposed to them [Fono of Faipules, or Native Council] that two of them should sit on what he had called the Mixed Council. He himself had been in favour of this. To his surprise, the Natives had not readily responded; they seemed to be suspicious of something, and he had then asked them to think it over and let him know their answer at the next half-yearly Fono. He had not known at that time that the chiefs were very jealous of each other. . . .

"When the Faipules assembled again and gave their answer it was in the negative."

This is absolutely untrue. In "O le Savali" (Government Gazette, published in the Samoan language) of July, 1923, the resolutions of the Fono of Faipule of June, 1923, appeared. This would be the first Faipule Fono after General Richardson's arrival in Samoa, and he naturally presided over it. I think it is Resolution 18 which states that the Fono of Faipules agreed to two Native representatives being appointed to the Legislative Council, and the appointment was left to His Excellency the Administrator.

In cross-examining the Administrator before the Royal Commission at Apia in October, 1927, counsel for the Samoans put a question to Sir George Richardson (page 378, Royal Commission) :

Mr. Baxter: Did not the Fono of Faipule pass a resolution in the June 1923 Fono requesting you to place two Natives on the Council?

Sir George Richardson: I do not think so. I do not remember that. June, 1923, would be my first Fono. I remember very little about it. I had just arrived here, and held those views, but they were not what I said in 1925. I am sure they will not apply. I think those views were just what I had put into their heads. They were my idea. . . ."