Savagery Of Sentence On Larkin

Confirmed By Parliamentary Inertia.

THE following is a report of a debate which took place in the House of Represen tatives, Canberra, on an adjournment motion, at the end of September. The case of Larkin is well-known in the Territory.

MR. R. GREEN: I desire to bring under the notice of the House, the case of a planter named James Joseph Larkin, who was sentenced in the Cen tral Court at Rabaul by Chief Judge Wanliss, to ten years hard labour after being convicted of the murder of a native named Sambung.

Larkin was in charge of the Noru Plantation, which he purchased from the custodian of expropriated proper ties in 1928. Prior to that, for about seven years, he had occupied the position of plantation manager in the territory for the board, having gone to New Guinea upon his return from the war, where he held a commission in the Air Force. About 50 native boys were employed on Noru, and the nearest white man, other than Larkin himself, was 40 miles away. Larkin, at the time, was in partnership with Mr. Edgill.

The evidence shows that on Satur day afternoon, October 24, Mr. Edgell sent three of his native boys to Noru plantation from another plantation about 80 miles distant, with instruc tions to remain on Noru for about three weeks. When they arrived, Larkin was in bed suffering from a bad attack of malaria. No work was done on Sunday, and on the Monday afternoon the three boys approached Mr. Larkin, and stated that they wanted to return immediately to Mr. Edgell. Larkin had given them some work to do, but, as he was in bed, he was unable to supervise them.

Sambung, the youngest of the three became insolent to Larkin. The atti tude of the three boys was really a direct challenge to Larkin’s authority.

He asked them why they wanted to leave, and Sambung told him that Edgell, and not Larkin, was their master. Because of Sambung’s insol ence, Larkin, who was in pyjamas, made a step towards the boy, but did not lay hands on him. Sambung then attacked Larkin. He got him down on the ground, bit him on the arm, and broke one of the bones in Larkin’s right hand. As he was being badly knocked about by Sambun, Larkin called to his cook-boy, who came and pulled Sambung off.

Larkin then washed away the blood caused by his injuries and immediately ordered his cook-boy to call some of his other native boys. Sambung was then seized, and spread-eagled on the verandah and beaten with a cane by the cook-boy. The evidence does not disclose how many strokes were ad ministered. Larkin said there were about 30 or 40, and as the native wit nesses are unable to count, they could not say. All this happened within the space of about five minutes.

At about 7 o’clock in the evening, Larkin went down to the native quar ters and found Sambung lying on a native blanket on the floor. The skin of one of his buttocks had been abrased by the cane and the wound

was in contact with the blanket. Mr.

Larkin had the injury bathed with Condy’s fluid, and, having applied olive oil to the damaged skin, gave the boy a clean bed sheet. He visited Sam bung again on the following morning and gave him further treatment. The boy was then able to walk about.

On the following Wednesday, the district officer arrived at Larkin’s plantation on his usual departmental inspection, and at about 2 o’clock made mention of Sambung’s condition. They then went down and found the boy sitting up in bed in a better house, to which he had been removed from the

native quarter. Sambung showed the district officer the injuries caused by the cane, and the district officer ordered his removal to Manus hospital for treatment.

Sambung made the journey in a small schooner, and during the voyage, which occupied 6 or 7 hours, received no attention whatever. When he ar rived at the hospital, he was in a state of collapse, and died shortly after wards. Mr. Lambert, the medical as sistant who saw the boy, is not a duly qualified medical man, the nearest doctor at the time being about 300 miles distant. In his evidence, Mr.

Lambert said that the boy had died from gangrene and shock. He ad mitted that the boat trip would have had a detrimental effect on the boy’s condition.

No Trial By Jury.

Following Sambung’s death, Larkin was brought to trial before Judge Wanliss, and, being found guilty of wilful murder, was sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment.

Medical evidence called on behalf of

Larkin was to the effect that a caning on the buttocks was unlikely to cause death, but that direct contact with a native blanket would, in all proba bility, cause gangrene, and that the boat trip from Noru to Manus would have aggravated his condition. All the evidence before Judge Wanliss came from native witnesses, with the excep tion of Mr. Lambert, and as the judge does not understand the native language, he had to rely entirely upon an interpreter.

There is no trial by jury in New Guinea. Lambert, a man in the middle forties, was the principal witness as to the cause of death, and he is not a fully qualified medical man; his status would be equivalent to that of a person competent to render first aid.

Larkin was convicted of wilful murder, and the charge of murder is not laid if the person accused does not commit the crime with murderous in tent. In Larkin’s case, there certainly was no murderous intent. All he did was to have the boy spread-eagled and chastised, as a schoolmaster would punish an unruly pupil for insolence.

Even if the punishment was severe, Larkin had no intention of doing the boy serious injury.

MR. GABB: He admitted that 40 strokes of the cane were administered.

MR. MAXWELL; Has the honour able member given all the evidence submitted to the judge?

MR. GREEN: I have stated the facts as I know them.

MR. MAXWELL: The judge is one of the fairest-minded men who has ever sat on the bench.

MR. GREEN: I am not condemning him, but I am pointing out that Larkin had no murderous intent, and did not intend to inflict even grevious bodily harm. Yet, as I have pointed out, he was found guilty, not of man slaughter, but of murder. The nearest white man was 30 miles away, and the neighbourhood was not particularly quiet. Being an isolated white man, he had to maintain some semblance of discipline on his plantation.

Some Comparisons.

A month or so after this episode, Chun Wun, an old Chinaman, who managed an adjoining plantation, was murdered by a plantation boy. In 1921, at a place in the same group of islands, Reiss, a German landholder, was mur dered by natives, and the trouble started in a manner similar to the attack on Mr. Larkin. It is a fright ful indignity for the master of a plan tation to be “worsted” by a native.

There are about 75 boys working on the plantation, and if Larkin could not maintain discipline he would have to leave the plantation. Those familiar with native life know that the “boys" will always try a man out at least once, and it is essential for him to show that he is the absolute master, no matter under what circumstances his authority is challenged.

MR. JAMES: Do not the natives work under slave conditions?

MR. GREEN: Certainly not. Let us compare Larkin’s case, in which a sentence of ten years was imposed for murder, with a number of other cases in which lighter penalties were in flicted, for a I consider that Larkin’s sentence was excessive in every respect. Scott, a white man with one arm, was murdered in 1925. He was attacked by a native employee, and the

first blow he received resulted in his only arm being cut off. This left him incapable of defending himself. He was then practically hacked to pieces.

The verdict returned in that case was one of manslaughter; but I have yet to know a native who is capable of drawing a distinction between man slaughter and murder. All that the natives would know would be that one of their number had killed a white man, and had been sentenced to five years imprisonment for it. It was really a case of wilful murder, but the convicted man was not kept in gaol for the whole period of the sentence.

On the 27th August, 1929, a white man was convicted of having mur dered a native labourer. He had kicked him about the body with heavy boots, thereby causing his death. I understand that in the first place the white man was wearing sand shoes, but he afterwards changed into his heavy plantation boots for the purpose of punishing the native. He was con victed of wilful murder, and was sen tenced to two years hard labour.

In another case, a native named Poina wilfully murdered the manager of a plantation on which he was em ployed, by striking him on the head with a hammer while he slept. The native was sentenced to death, but the sentence was afterwards commuted to seven years’ hard labour.

When one compares those sentences with that in Larkin’s case, one ap preciates the extreme severity of the sentence imposed on him.

Twice recently I visited the territory concerned, and wherever I went the inhabitants were talking of Larkins case and of the severity of his sen tence. He had been grossly insulted, then assaulted, and afterwards he had the native beaten with a cane as a schoolmaster might punish an unruly pupil. As I have said, he had no in tention whatever of murdering him, or even inflicting grievous bodily harm.

After the punishment, he had the boys injuries attended to, and it is impos sible to say whether the native’s death resulted from the punishment. The person who gave the medical evidence, and who performed the examination, was not a qualified medi cal man. But it was on his testimony that Larkin was convicted.

I appeal to the Minister to review this case. When he ascertains what has been done in previous cases of a similar nature, and considers them in conjunction with such evidence as is procurable in Larkin’s case, I feel sure that it will be found that the sentence is out of all proportion to the offence.

Minister’S Reply.

MR. MARK (Minister for Health): The gravamen of the charge, I take it, is that the penalty inflicted was out of all proportion to the offence. I do not intend to express an opinion re garding the decision of the judge. The administration of the Mandated Ter ritory must be left to the officials ap pointed for that purpose. The judge in question was placed in his present position to administer justice in the islands in accordance with the law.

Shortly after I assumed control of the territorial services, this case was brought prominently before my notice.

I called for a full report, and the judge himself, through the administration, submitted a file of papers covering ten sheets of foolscap, setting out the whole of the facts from beginning to end. That file is open to examination.

The opening facts are practically as outlined by Mr. Green. There was a stand-up fight between the black man and the white. The evidence given to the court by the white man was, that the black man rushed in with his head pushing into his (the white man’s) chest. He grabbed the black man by the head, and closed with him. We know that at times trouble has been experienced in the islands. The New Guinea native especially is of primitive stock. White men at least know, or they should, the difference between right and wrong. The island native has not yet advanced to that extent. In administering its mandate in New Guinea, the Commonwealth has to per form the particular duty of safe guarding the interests of the natives.

If, during the heat of this fight, either the black man or the white man had been killed, I would have said that Mr. Green’s allegations were well founded. But this man, with his face spattered with blood, and his thumb broken from having been pressed over the verandah rail, retired and had a bath.

MR. GANDER: Still with his pyjamas on?

MR. MARR: No; he clothed himself in his white raiment. It is alleged that he was in his right mind He called his cookboy, who brought with him four other boys. The latter carried the native to the verandah or the bungalow, and, sitting on his arms and legs, held him down while the cookboy thrashed him with a walking stick. The accused, in his evidence to the court, stated that he told the boy to proceed to the bungalow and

fetch a stick. Here, are his own words: I told them to bring Sambung up on to the verandah. I told them to put him down and hold him fast, which they did. His arms were stretched out, legs extended out, with a boy holding each limb. I then walked into the dining-room, got a walking cane off the hat rack, calling the boy Ubahau at the same time. The top of the stick had a rooted end,, used as the handle part of the walking stick, gradually tapering to the smaller end, which was the size of exhibit B. Ubahau arrived, and I gave him the stick and said ‘You give him Sambung stick.” I did not tell him how many strokes to give Sambung.

Had the boy been told the number of strokes to give, and had the punish ment ceased when they had been given, there might have been less reason to take exception to it. But, when the cookboy was so fatigued that he could not continue, Larkin took the cane himself and went on with the thrashing. When he had had a “go,” he called upon another native to pro ceed with the castigation. As one be came tired, another took it over, until the boy who was being thrashed was in such a state that he could not even roll off the verandah, and was carried away by the natives, and thrown on to his wooden bunk in the hut.

I consider that Mr. Green was ill advised in bringing this case into the Commonwealth Parliament. I say that in the interests of the relatives of the man who was accused and found guilty. I have had many heartrending episodes in connection with his re latives. The news of his treatment of this native and the sentence imposed on him has been kept from his old father, who, up to the present moment, is not aware that such a thing hap pened. The judge, in his summing up, made most caustic reference to the fight, and to the manner in which the native was treated.

Under the mandate which they hold, the people of Australia, who have given the custody of these natives, owe a duty to the League of Nations. The black man, who cannot distinguish between right and wrong, is our peculiar charge. It is the duty of this Parlia ment, as well as of the people of this country, and particularly duty as Minister administering the territories, to see that the natives of the island are given a fair deal. In Papua, the administration under Sir Hubert Murray—a man whose name stands high in the annals of colonisation, and whose word is accepted unques tioningly—has never had an experi ence such as this. We have to be very careful, in the handling of our man date and the treatment of our natives, to show to the world that we are worthy of the trust that has been re posed in us. Probably, there are many faults in the black man. But we of the white race profess to be much further advanced than he in our civilisation. From the practical ex perience that I gained while living with the natives for some time, I can say that the native of New Guinea is most amenable to reason. He is a man who loves his children, and who jealously guards his “Mary.” The troubles in the islands are almost invariably caused by the interference of white men with the native women.

MR. MAXWELL: Mr. Green would not have touched the case had he known the facts.

MR. GREEN: I was supplied with the information by the people them selves.

MR. MARK: I agree with Mr.

Green’s contention that there may be some cause for complaint in that we have not the jury system in New Guinea. Since I became Minister in charge of the territories on the occasion, I have investigated the con ditions in other dominions, colonies, and protectorates. There is no British colony or protectorate that has the

jury system. They have assessors.

We have the assessor system in Papua, but it has never been availed of.

During my last term as Minister, in 1927-28 the assessor system was offered to New Guinea, but was not accepted.

MR. GREEN: They have the jury system in Papua.

MR. MARK; It obtains only in one particular spot, and no jury has yet been empanelled. There may be faults on both sides; but again I it is our duty to show the natives that we are anxious to see that they get justice.

MR. JAMES: Is it true that the rate of wages paid to the boys is only 4s. or 5s. a month?

MR. MARR: It is not a fact.

MR. JAMES: What is the rate?

MR. MARR: The rate is what the natives call one mark, which is equal to about 10d. a day. They are gener ally paid 1s. a day. It has been my experience that the natives will not take money.

MR. COLLINS: They would sooner have a bottle of rum.

MR. MARR: There is no intoxicating liquors in New Guinea. If the natives get liquor it is because the white man gives it to them. I have never yet found natives who willingly take liquor. Planters, traders, and miners have told me that they can give a native a case of whisky and he will carry it for eight days to the goldfields and not touch a drop of it.

MR. MAKIN; When were the labour conditions altered? When I was in the islands some years ago the pay was 5s. a month.

The "Summing Up.”

MR. MARR; The pay is 5s. a month and keep, but there are three years’ deferred pay and other conditions of employment. So many “lap-laps” are provided, and so on. Honorable mem bers who have visited the territory and who have seen natives at the time they were recruited, must admit that the recruiting is of inestimable value to the natives themselves. Natives are frequently brought in from the bush mere bundles of skin and bone. Of course, no native is forced to offer himself for service. He is taken be fore a magistrate and asked whether he is willing to “make paper.’’ If he says “No,” he simply goes back to his village again. But these natives, after having three square meals a day for a while, grow into practically new men.

The concluding paragraph of the judge’s summing-up in the Larkin case read as follows; To my mind it was abundantly proved, and there was no suggestion of any other cause of death. It was suggested that if he had not been taken in the pinnace to Lorungau he might have survived. The only possible chance he had of living was to be taken to Lorungau, where he would receive attention. If, as it was the case, it was necessary to take him in the pinnace, he had to be taken. He had to be taken in the pinnace or left to die where he was. The suggestion also that death was due to other causes also fails. The cause of death was the flogging. The shock, gangrene, etc., are all attributable to the flogging, and no thing else, and if ever a native was flogged to death this one was.

Now, I have stated that, in my opinion, the first assault, or the first fight, was the fault of the accused. The boy may have been, as he says, cheeky. That is quite possible, although he had only the accused’s word for it. There is the possibility that the boy was the attacker in that case, and, as it is a possibility, I am going to give the accused the benefit of that, but that is no excuse for what happened after wards.

The flogging, unfortunately, was a considered act, done after the heat of the struggle; after the other party to the struggle had gone and after Sambung had been brought back for

reasons of revenge and punishment. The re venge or punishment was brutal, cowardly and deliberate. The act was one which is a dis grace to the white race, and one of a type that discredits the territory. These things when they happen do more harm than many cases of vio lence by natives, and I cannot treat it as other than a very serious offence.

It has been pointed out to me that you served your country during the War. It may be that hardships of active service have affected you to some extent. That I do not know, but, at any rate, we know that you have served your coun try, and because of that your sentence will be lighter than would otherwise be the case.

When I took charge of the adminis tration of these territories (continued Mr. Green), and had this case brought under my notice, I was at first in clined to think that there was some justification for the view that justice had not been meted out to this man, but after I read the evidence and the judge’s summing-up, I could form no other conclusion than that the judge had summed-up in a masterly way and that the verdict was just. In these circumstances, I can see no reason why the Government or Parliament should intervene.