Pig-Headed New Zealand and Stubborn Mau

REPORTS which continue to reach us from Western Samoa are conflicting and confusing.

On the one hand, we are assured by the New Zea land authorities, in personal as well as official corres pondence, that the Mau movement in Western Samoa is dying out, insofar as active hostility to the present Administration is concerned, and that if Western Samoa is only left alone it will presently settle down to peace and tranquility.

On the other hand, we are informed by members of the Mau, and friends of the Mau, that the over whelming majority of Samoans are supporters of the Mau, and that the Mau is stronger and more determined than ever in its hostility towards the New Zealand Administration and more determined than ever to continue its policy of non-cooperation.

When we seek for the truth among people recently in Western Samoa, who may be expected to be without partisan prejudices, we are equally confused. There are a few who say that the Terri tory is slowly settling down to more peaceful con ditions ; but most of them, and apparently the better-informed people, declare that there is no possibility of the Mau quietly fading out of the picture and that, unless there is some definite

rapprochement between the Administration and the great body of Man followers, there inevitably will be another uprising in Western Samoa and another period of civil disorder.

It is impossible, in the circumstances, to say exactly what is the position, but we fear that the weight of evidence indicates a very unsatisfactory position, which will tend to get worse unless the New Zealand Government introduces a policy very different to that Avhich has been followed up to date. Almost every man of independent and judicial mind, who has considered the history of Samoa during the past 18 years, has given it as his opinion that the blundering stupidity of New Zealand officials was the prime cause of the trouble which came to a head in the fatal riot of December, 1929.

Grave faults also lay with the Samoans and their leaders; but the clear fact that the New Zealand authorities were not blameless throws upon New Zealand an obligation to at least make an attempt to end the present impasse by a generous gesture.

The outstanding and important fact is that the New Zealand Government, at no time, has met the Samoan natives of the Man organisation in a generous or even a conciliatory spirit.

When Brig.-General Hart was appointed Admini strator in 1931 it was believed that a way had been opened towards conciliation and compromise. But, to the bitter disappointment of all friends of Western Samoa, nothing has happened—the Administrator remains isolated on his hill at Vailima, surrounded only by officials and by a small section of the Samoans; while the Mau, sullen and silent, remains stubbornly apart, discussing its wrongs in its bush villages and grimly awaiting the next move of officialdom. The New Zealand Government possibly may deny that it was at fault in creating the situa tion which culminated in the 1929 riot; but it cer tainly cannot deny that it is at fault insofar that it has promoted no better relationship with the Mau since 1929, and that now, three years after that deplorable event, the Administration and the mass of Samoan natives are as far apart as ever. We know positively that an offer to arrange a round table conference between the New Zealand Admini stration and the Mau leaders was made recently to the New Zealand Government and turned down; and various communications which we have had from Samoa state unequivocably that it is the in fluence of the New Zealand Government itself which has prevented General Hart from undertaking the conciliatory activities that were generally expected of him when he took up the duties of Administrator.

Perhaps future events will justify the stubborn, uncompromising attitude of the New Zealand Gov ernment towards the Samoans —which is, of course, based op the belief that the Mau will presently wither and die. We hope that they do. Every friend of the Samoans and everyone who is jealous of the good name of the New Zealand people will hope that, out of the present difficult conditions, there may arise a happier and better Samoa. But, if it is true that conditions actually are no better in Samoa to-day than they have been iat any time during the past seven years, and if Samoan discon tent is bubbling up towards another outbreak, then the New Zealand Government will stand convicted of a degree of stupidity and pig-headedness, which it is difficult to express in calm language.

An official correspondent has said to us that New Zealand has done everything that can be expected of her and that “the future of Samoa is on the knees of the high gods.” That is utterly ridiculous nonsense. The immediate future of Samoa is directly the obligation and responsibilty of the New Zealand Government; and if there is further friction in the Territory there will be such an uprising of opinion in the Chancellories of the Powers that it may easily result in New Zealand being disgrace fully deprived of the mandate to govern Western Samoa.

This is no idle warning—as a recounting of the following circumstances may suggest.

In 1927 three Mau leaders (O. F. Nelson, a wealthy merchant, E. W. Gurr, a lawyer, and A. G.

Smyth, a well-known commercial man) were de ported from Western Samoa by the Administrator

because of alleged revolutionary activities. It was an ill-considered, high-handed action, and the final result of it is still in the future.

Messrs. Nelson and Gurr were sent away for five years, and Mr. Smyth for two years. When Mr.

Smyth returned to Apia on December 28, 1929, the Mau arranged a popular welcome. There was a clash between the Mau assembly and the police, in which 11 Samoans were killed, including the high chief Tamasese. This incident fanned the flame of Mau anger and discontent to white heat; and the breach between Administration and Mau has remained wide open, ever since.

The period of banishment of Messrs. Nelson and Gurr expires in December, and they propose to return to Samoa. On. August 31 six representative Samoans sent a letter to the Administrator, inform ing him of the above fact, and asking for his promise that the Mau will be permitted fittingly to welcome Mr. Nelson, and Mr. Nelson permitted to travel through the Territory and meet and address the Mau. The letter was very lengthy; and in it General Hart was reminded that when he arrived in Samoa on May 1, 1931, the Mau formally asked for a conference, with a view to the discussion and settlement of outstanding differences.

In their letter of August 31, the Mau leaders said: — “We propose to give Messrs. Nelson (Taisi) and Gurr on their return to Samoa that welcome and reception, which is not only due to them for their proved loyalty to Samoa, but which our own social system demands of us. We feel we have a right to know from you to what extent the armed military police will be permitted to use their lethal weapons on another peaceful and unarmed procession, which on this occasion will occur on the anniversary of the previous tragedy? In this event is a recurrence of that tragedy contemplated?

“In respect to Taisi, we respectfully wish to inform you that we are resolved to meet him without let or hindrance; to hear from him personally what were the results of the mission we entrusted to him to represent us in New Zea land, in Geneva, and in such other places where he might have found reason to plead our cause. It is not possible for all our people to assemble at Apia on Taisi’s arrival, and as they would all like to have the same opportunity to meet and hear him, we would propose that he meets the Samoans and speaks freely to them on these matters when he visits the outside districts, or on other occasions which might arise.

“We wish to be assured that no restrictions will be placed on us or on him to bring into effect what we claim we have a right to demand, also that the Government will not bring any action against Taisi for anything he might have said, written, or done in New Zealand or elsewhere; or in his communications to us, or others, in regard to his activities abroad on our behalf; or in regard to anything he may have to say to us here about his work when he meets us.’

General Hart never replied to the letter of May 1, 1931 —evidently the outcome of the policy of offici ally refusing to recognise the Mau, in any shape or form.

To the somewhat truculent letter of August 31, 1932, the Administrator replied curtly as follows, on September 3, 1932; — Faumuina Fiame, Lepea.

Dear Sir, I am in receipt of the letter from you and others dated the 31st August. The events referred to by you will be considered and disposed of at the proper time and place as and when they occur.

Yours faithfully,

H. Hart

Administrator.

(Continued on page 11.)

Faumuina Fiame, who was the first of the six signatories of the letter of August 31, is president of the Mau.

There was some critical comment be cause the Administrator, when reply ing, did not give him any courtesy title to which he is entitled, although this Chief and his fellows were careful on their part to observe all the niceties of formal and officials correspondence.

The next development was that the Administrator, General Hart, quite un expectedly arrived in New Zealand at the beginning of October and proceeded to Wellington to consult with the Gov ernment. There was no indication of the purpose of the visit; but it was generally assumed to have some con nection with the pending return to Samoa of Mr. O. F. Nelson.