Those Undisciplined

Natives A Word on Behalf of the Officials

Written for The Pacific Islands Monthly by Gordon Thomas.

MUCH too much criticism has appeared from time to time in southern papers about the New Guinea Administration launched, invariably, by some malcontent who has been un fortunate enough to clash with official dom.

Sometimes the aggrieved party is perfectly justified in complaining of discourtesies received at the hands of some over-zealous cub-official; some times he is not. But, in either case, there is always the proper channel through which such grievances may be made.

Invariably we islanders, when we read in the southern Press some fea tured tale of victimisation that has occurred in our midst, and knowing the circumstances of the case, shrug our shoulders and pass it over for the sporting page or weekly market quo tations. Invariably, the particular in dividual has had other grievances “agin the government,” in which he has come off second best; and his tales of incompetent officials are a method of balancing the ledger.

In many of these “featured stories” from the Islands there is just sufficient truth to warrant action. But often it is neither sufficient or politic for the incident to be figured with glaring headlines for a sensation-loving read ing public.

I do not necessarily maintain that the article founded on Captain Mil ton’s allegations come exactly within this category. It is quite within the bounds of possibility that the publicity given to Captain Milton’s clash with the Kavieng officials has, as its dom inating object, a thorough review of conditions which are brought about at intervals by inexperienced officials who “clothed in brief authority,” often are responsible for a great deal of irrita tion to the older settlers. If so, then seems a pity that Captain Milton, wih his experience, could not suggest a more concise solution to the diffi cutly, which all planters await only too eagerly.

The Captain says; “Most of the trouble in New Guinea can be traced to the fact that Australia has had no experience of this kind of responsibility, and it is incapable of appreciating the need for sending to New Guinea officials who are en dowed with the necessary education and training and some understanding of the na tive mind.’’

He realises, no doubt, that experi ence can only be gained after the effluxion of a number of years. Aus tralia’s Territorial service is in its in fancy, and planters like Captain Mil ton unfortunately have to bear the burden of the mistakes of young offici aldom, no less than the more experi enced officers of the Administration holding executive positions. It is one of the many trials which fall to the lot of the pioneer. Captain Milton cannot expect Australia to put into the field a fully-trained and highly efficient ser vice in her second “colony” (so to speak) which would compare favour

ably with the old-established Colonial Office Service at Home. As many—if not more—mistakes were sheeted home to the Colonial Office staffs during the first years of its activities.

My personal experience of conditions in New Guinea is that the personnel of the Administration Staff is improv ing with remarkable speed, taking everything into consideration, and I do not suppose any other country in the world would have had more satisfac tory results with the material at its command. There is no more adaptable man than the Australian.

As for the policy of “molly-coddling” —that is a matter outside the purview of the Administration. “Mandateite,” who is quoted in the article, seems to hit the nail on the head when he men tions “the policy forced upon the Ad ministration by the League of Na tions.” That is where the trouble lies, and any change in the present policy must come from the League; not from the Administration.

If Captain Milton were to peruse the official minutes of the Sessions of the Permanent Mandates Commission who review, dissect and criticise the annual reports tendered by the Administration to the League, he would realise some of the difficulties with which the Ad ministration has to contend.

There are one or two points in Cap tain Milton’s remarks which, to my mind, require modifying or correcting, and which, I feel sure, as a Sandhurst gentleman, he will take in the right spirit.

He refers to that regrettable affair of the Edmonds’ murder, which hap pened, to be precise, on the Island of New Britain (not New Ireland), on September 15, 1930 (not “18 months ago” as stated). The evidence of white men not being accepted is contradic tory to the report of the Judge’s sum ming-up, where he said: “Any fear that the story of ill-treatment is untrue or a gross exaggeration is set at rest by the evidence of Mr. Pinching, the owner of an adjoining plantation. Mr. Pinch ing gave his evidence in a straight-forward, honest and eminently fair way, though one could see that he gave it reluctantly.”

And then mentions certain details, the repetition of which would only be distressing to the relatives of the de ceased.

There is ever little gained in bring ing into the light of publicity sordid and distressing affairs such as the Ed monds’ case. No relevant facts bearing on the Milton affair were emphasised, and they only tend to make the Per manent Mandates Commission more

vigilant and exacting in their require ments of the Mandatory Power. (Editorial Note: We are obliged to Mr. Thomas for his fair and moderate comment on Captain Milton’s state ment; and we have published it with out alteration or deletion. Other let ters on the same subject are vitriolic and truculent, and would require so much editing to make them suitable for publication that it has been deemed wiser to merely file them, as records.)