Remarkable Controversy

About Missions And Trade.

Extraordinary interest has been taken in the published letter from Mr. A. J. Vogan, F.R.G.S., on “Money-making Missions," and the reply thereto of the Rev. J. W. Burton, general secretary of the Methodist mission organisations. Several people have written to the editor on the subject, and most of their letters are published hereunder.

None of them display antagonism to the missions—on the contrary, most of them praise the missionaries’ devoted, self-sacrificing work—but all express surprise to learn that trading by missionaries is not countenanced by the Methodist mission authorities.

Mr. Vogan’s Reply.

[To the Editor.] Sir. —If you think this rather stupid controversy worth further space, please permit me to state that I deny that anyone but our two selves were present when Mr. Gilmour made his unfriendly and purposely (as I know now) unacceptable offers to me. I have learned of his previous visitor, who criticised his mission. Magis trate Oldham is a very busy man. He introduced me; and then hurried away, Mr. Dixon certainly was not present. I don’t think I ever met him —but I meet so many!

I am quite content to leave the ver dict of my truthfulness to the unpre judiced opinion of your far-flung audience, who know “What’s what” in the Pacific ever better than I do. Mr.

Burton cannot injure me in the eyes of my larger public for whom I have been writing articles, reports to big London houses, and books, for nearly half a century.

I look upon the old type of Christian missionary enterprise as perhaps the noblest profession on earth. I have never, since I started exploring (in New Guinea in 1885) previously had occasion to adversely criticise a mission; and only did so now to obtain a reform, which I have been successful in doing—for the sub ordinates contradicting my statements had apparently broken a rule of the Methodist Missionary Society.

I am, etc.,

Arthur J. Vogan.

Pymble, March 22, 1932.

An Opinion from Papua.

[To the Editor.] Sir, —I was vastly interested and surprised to read the Rev. John W.

Burton’s reply to Mr. Vogan in your January issue.

Mr. Vogan knows what he is talking about, and his opinions coincide with those of many residents here.

Surely Mr. Burton is not so ignorant of Mission matters that he is not aware that in this district Mission trading has been going on for many years. It has, until quite recently, been the most powerful stumbling-block to the ad vancement —commercially—of the “gin sodden-traders” who, hitherto, have either been too spineless to protest in

the right quarters, or else were under the impression that trading was part of the Methodist Missions’ methods, to eke out the contributions of a parsi monious Australasian church-going public. Is he not aware that one of his ministers was, within the year, fined by the District Officer for “trad ing without a license”?

The Mission does not now trade of ficially, but it would be very interest ing to know exactly how much interest it has in the new trading concern, which is known locally as the “3 G.

Syndicate.”

Wishing your wonderful little paper all the success it rightly deserves, ‘I am, etc.,

A. W. Musgrave.

Gizo, B.S.I., March 1, 1932.

Another Point of View.

[To the Editor.]

Sir, —The planters and traders of the Western Solomons must have “smiled aloud” after reading Mr. Burton’s let ter in January issue about Methodist Missions and trading, If Mr. Burton would write to the District Officer at Gizo, he could get the names of Metho dist Mission schooners and stations holding trading licenses. Also, the D.O. could furnish him with the name of the unfortunate missionary who was fined for trading without a license —he think ing his license had been renewed by the head of the Mission.

A lot has been said about the “Yel low Peril,” which has long been a thorn in the side of the legitimate white trader, but it is no worse than the missions. I don’t know what term the missionaries use for the buying and selling of goods at a profit, be it ever so small, but we call it trading.

From what I see and hear, the Me thodists are not alone in this, although I think they are the only ones who have taken out licenses.

Is there any wonder that the trader smarts under such injustice? He has to pay for his own house, his own boat, and all the upkeep pertaining to both, recruiting fees, permits to engage labour, and the taxes of his indentured labourers, £10 per year for a store license, £5 per year for a boat used for trading purposes, etc. On the other hand, the missionaries get their work done for nothing, or for very little.

Missionaries live in a little world of th§ir own and I am sure they do not

realise what harm they do the white planter and trader by depriving him of his legitimate living. Also, when the native can get something for no thing, or for very little, from the mis sionary, he naturally thinks he is be ing taken down by the trader when the latter charges him a price to bring him in a profit, which does not exceed the profit made by the big firms when selling the said article to the trader.

There are always two sides to a question. Personally, I think it would be best if the missions were to confine their activities to the work for which they originally came here, that of teaching religion, cleanliness, and at tending to the sick, etc., and leave trading to those who call it trade. It would, I feel sure, sweep away a lot of the ill-feeling which is at present felt towards the missions through their trading activities.

Missionaries are here, we presume, for the benefit of the native. But is it for his good to encourage him in in herent laziness? It is impossible to recruit boys for any kind of work in this district (Western Solomons), where missions have been stationed for the past 20 years. Does this speak well for the progress of the Islands?

There would be no need for Levers to clamour for indentured Asiatic labour if the missionaries were to en courage their flock, instead of influenc ing them against it, to go out and work for the white men after he has finished his schooling term. The natives would then be able, after two years of regu lar work, regular food, regular rest, to return to their villages, hefty and strong, with the knowledge that they had been useful units in the progress of their country.

I am, etc.,

Planter & Trader.

March 7, 1932.

Something’ Further About

Missions.

[To the Editor.] Sir, —One so frequently hears, “I’ve no time for missions,” and so con stantly reads of them as if one and all were conducted on parallel lines that “Missions —Good and Bad’” will be read with interest by many (P.I.M. Dec., last).

Rev. Thatchell, a man of wide ex perience, and who has travelled, “per boot” over most of the inhabited globe, says, in “The Happy Traveller" (I quote from memory), “It is a moot point whether the coming of the mis sionary to the South Sea Islands re sulted in the good of the native, or the reverse.” He then gives some well-thought reasons for his doubt.

Mr. Westbrook’s article is re freshing. It strikes a new note.

There are “good” missions, and “bad” ones. He might also have added that there are also good missionaries, and bad ones.

I earn a crust as a trader, or small storekeeper, and have known the coastal natives of Papua for 20 years.

I have also had experience in other tropical countries, so I may claim to have seen something of both sides of the picture.

That the methods of the “bad” missionary would be condemned by the

“good” missionary just as quickly as by the layman is beyond doubt.

I remember an occasion when a bad one figured. It was in the bungalow belonging to the missionary, a L.M.S. man. A Government official spoke of three cases of V.D. among the children in the village close by. “Had the missionary done anything about it?

Had he reported it?’ The answer was, “I’m not here to look after the bodies of the natives, but their souls.”

Would it be fair to say, “I’ve no time for the L.M.S.,” simply because one of their number took that view? Would the late Rev. Dauncey have made such a reply; or can one imagine the genial big-hearted head of the Fife Bay Mission, the Rev. C. Rich, taking such a stand? Yet these are L.M.S. men.

I have a recollection of being landed on my way to hospital. I was too far gone at the time to know anything, but learned that the man who turned out and assisted the boys to carry me to the hospital was a missionary.

Many cases are known of Europeans in the “back of beyond” being nursed back to life by missionaries.

I agree with Mrs. Keelan, in “The Land of Dohori,” where she strongly advises the newcomer to shun the ex mission boy as a house servant. I’ve tried eight in the past 20 years, and seven were incurable thieves. The fault, nevertheless, may not lie at the door of the mission.

Mr. A. J. Vogan in your December number, speaks of the Methodist mission being “too much concerned with trading.” I do not think that is correct. I’ve visited some of their stations, and, as a trader, would have noticed indications of anything of the kind.

The missions which appear to me to be on the right lines are those teaching industries, medical missions, and, to some extent, those who are promoting clean sport.

And now, if there are missionary readers of the P.I.M., may I make an appeal to them on a matter on which I feel strongly.

I refer to the inhuman manner in which pigs are treated when a native “Xmas” is held. The manner in which the killing is done is so revolting that, were it possible, I would avoid details.

Imagine the pig, tied by the legs (it has probably been tied for weeks) and placed on a heap of fibre. More fibre is heaped on the poor animal. The fibre is lighted, and the animal’s shrieks die away, I regret to say that I saw this occur almost in the shadow of a white missionary’s house.

In one district, the pigs are brought from a distance. They are bartered over and over again; tied up so long that the knee joint often rots off. Pigs can be seen dragging out a painful existence on their fore-stumps. The blinding of pigs to prevent straying is also common.

The answer often given by the mis sionary is that “the native doesn’t mean to be cruel.” I am afraid that being burned alive is equally painful, whether it is “meant” or not.

May I appeal to all your readers, missionaries, traders, government officials, whatever they may be, to do what is in their power to stop such awful cruelty.

I am, etc., H.D, Papua, March 9, 1933,