XII

After the departure of the Minister of External Affairs the European members of the Citizens' Committee, under threat of deportation, had severed, ostensibly at least, their connection with the Mau. From then on the purpose of the League changed. "It is clear," say the Commissioners, "that very shortly after the Minister's visit to Apia the Administrator quite properly came to the conclusion that the Mau organization had set out to paralyse the activities of the Government." His conclusion was probably correct. From that date it may be said that the Administration ceased to function, and the further multiplication of banishment orders was an ineffectual remedy. The Samoans were largely forced into their attitude. There was only needed the publication of the report of the Royal Commission, in December, to shake finally the faith of the natives in New Zealand—for to them it must obviously have traversed the truth—and the membership of the Mau, already estimated at more than 90 per cent, of the population, increased still further.

The important question of Prohibition was found beyond the scope of the inquiry, and the Commissioners state that they are not entitled to express an opinion on it. Then, although not a single witness was called in support of Prohibition, and Government officials gave evidence against it, they go on to express the following opinion: "it appears clear that the legisation has proved effective to prevent, so far as could reasonably be expected, the consumption of intoxicating liquor by Samoans."

With regard to copra-buying, into which the Administration had entered into competition with the merchants in March 1927 (it had been in the wind for a long time), the Com-page 233missioners present the case for the Administration favourably, and say that being a measure of policy it does not come within the scope of their inquiry. They state then that it cannot be said that the conditions under which the Samoans sold their copra to the traders were just or reasonable, but that they have not found it necessary to come to any determination upon the submissions of the traders that they were not making an undue profit!

Regarding banishment orders, the Commissioners decided that the Administrator merely carried out the law and complied with it. (They refused—after evidence such as that concerning Tamasese had come out—to investigate the merits of banishments, more than fifty in number, made prior to the rise of the native unrest.) But they state: "Banishment orders were regularly made after a proper investigation at which the person proceeded against was able to present his case." Later in their report they state that no demand exists for the repeal of the power, but that it ought, of course, to be exercised with wisdom and caution.

Concerning the appointment of the Faipules, they slid lightly over thin ice. Evasive evidence was advanced in the report to exculpate the appointment of the Faipule of Falealupo, regarding whom I had made a specific charge in the London Times of August 26th. It was admitted that the Administrator had been unable to obtain from the chiefs and orators of the districts signatures to documents accepting responsibility for nominating the Faipules.

With regard to the individualization of family lands, the Commissioners said that the existing system was deep-rooted in the customs of the race, and ought to be modified with caution, and then only after modern conditions had radically altered the Samoan outlook on life. This was the nearest they came to criticism of the Administration in their report. Traders' licences had been illicitly cancelled merely owing to the Administrator's legal advisers misconceiving the position.

In respect of the presentation of "Emblems of Sovereignty" to New Zealand, which had greatly perturbed the Samoans in 1925, they said they had read Toelupe's speech,¹ and it con-page 234tained nothing which justified the suggestion that the gifts were intended otherwise than as curious, interesting, and historic emblems.

In conclusion, with regard to the "Book of Laws," the Commissioners reported: "Technically, of course, it was a mistake to include these experimental and advisory resolutions amongst the enforceable and binding laws. In our opinion no harm was done by the adoption of this course."

All the native unrest was blamed onto Mr. Nelson and his associates.

Rarely, I should think, in the history of Royal Commissions, has there been such flagrant and bare-faced whitewashing.