Must France Acquire

The New Hebrides?

To the Editor.

Sir,- —Your article dealing with the New Hebrides in the January issue of the “Pacific Islands Monthly” was read here with great interest, and your cor respondent’s statements will be en dorsed by most of the British planters here.

With regard to the suggestion that the New Hebrides should come under Australian control, it is doubtful whether this would find much support here, except, perhaps, among the mis sionaries.

I think the majority of British set tlers would prefer to see the group handed over to France for numerous reasons.

The British Government does not seem disposed to do anything to assist its nationals —in addition, its policy seems to be dictated by the missions.

It is possible that under British control we might be allowed to have imported labour, but regulations and restrictions on the recruiting of indigenous labour would be so onerous that the planter would find himself very little better off.

The Pacific Islands Year Book dealing with labour in the New Hebrides (p. 187) states: “The employment of natives under contract is regulated by the provisions of the Anglo-French Protocol of 1914, and by additional na tional legislation in the case of British settlers.” It is this additional national legislation (introduced at the behest of the missionaries) that has contributed to the present serious plight of the Bri tisher regarding labour.

In addition, under British govern ment, the missionaries would be free (and in some cases actually encour aged) to carry on their campaign of irritation and calumny against the Bri tish settler.

If the group were handed over to Australia it is hardly likely we should get imported labour. The Pacific Is lands Year Book (p. 182) says:—“It is believed the refusal to allow them (the British settler) to import Asiatic ’abour is due to Australian sensitiveness.’’

Under Australian rule this “sensitive ness” would probably be greatly in creased, and it would be interesting to know where the labour would be found to man the British as well as ex French plantations, as in the event of Australia taking control all Asiatic labour would be repatriated. Even with the large numbers of Asiatics employed by the French, the Britisher is sometimes hard put to obtain suffi cient labour for his needs. In regard to this, certain missionaries are to blame, as they openly advise natives not to “sign,” but only to work for a white man (themselves excepted) for a week or so. Anyone with the slightest knowledge of plantations will under stand that it is impossible to work a plantation profitably with weekly labour.

The majority of British settlers are of the opinion that their troubles can only be solved by handing the group over to France. Under control of this Government the Britisher will presum

a'oly enjoy the same rights as his French neighbour in respect to bonuses on produce, employment of Asiatic labour, regulations regarding recruiting of natives, elc.

Under Australian control would our produce, particularly cotton, maize and fruit, be allowed to enter the Common wealth to compete with the locally grown article. Presumably, we would still have to dispose of our produce in the European market.

In your article, you remark that French interests here have been so heavily subsidised that it is practically impossible for them ever to make any profit out of the colony. That is cor rect, and it is quite possible that should France succeed in getting con trol, those bonuses and loans may vanish into thin air. In any case Aus tralia would hardly be in a position to give settlers here any assistance.

There is no mention in your article of markets being found in Australia for Island produce. The cry of “black labour” would be raised at once. Ap parently, what Australia wants is to take control of the N.H. and impose a tariff to shut out foreign goods, but leave us to sell our produce where we can.

Finally, it is very improbable that France would agree to give up her in terests here, whether for a monetary payment or for a grant of territory elsewhere.

I am, etc.,

S. Dubois.

Malo, N.H., March 25, 1932.