Breeze In Tonga.

Committee Charged with Intolerance.

Specially Contributed.

IN proceeding toward any given point, there is always one line which is shortest —the Straight; so, in the con duct of human affairs, there is always one course which is best —the Just.

A representative gathering of foreign residents in Tonga, i.e., those of Euro pean descent —at a meeting held to pro test against the harsh conditions sought to be imposed by the Committee of the Victoria Memorial Hall in connection with an application to re-open the build ing as a school, were treated to an arbi trary display of intolerance quite sub versive of the principle of even-handed justice and fair-play, a respect for which is held by every loyal Britisher and the observance of which is indis pensable to the administration of British justice. More particularly in remote out posts which lie at the very fringe of the Empire.

The meeting was in all respects con stitutional, being called under a rule which provides that “public meetings shall be called upon a request of ten members of the public whenever they deem it necessary.” Twenty-six names were appended to the requisition, there fore the public were well represented.

The chairman of the Committee as sumed the office of chairman for the evening, and from the commencement displayed a manifest hostility toward the wishes of those assembled, refusing to submit to vote any resolution moved.

That the resolutions were reasonable the following will show, the first being “That the hall be used as a school sub ject only to the condition that the build ing and portion of ground used should be kept clean.” Properly moved and sec onded, the chairman refused to submit it to the meeting.

The second was —“This meeting re quest the Committee to reconsider the conditions and reframe them in keeping with the spirit of the meeting.” This, and the last resolution, which asked that two only of the conditions should be ex ercised, were refused consideration.

Rule 9, behind which the chairman sheltered, provides that “The Committee shall decide for what purpose the hall may be used and the amount of hire for the same.” Insisting that this rule em powers the Committee to ignore the wishes of the public (European) to whom the hall belongs, they have suc ceeded in preventing the co-owners of the hall from using their own property in the way they desire. The result is a

dead-lock without parallel in the hall’s history of thirty years.

Two features of the evening’s proceed ings stand out in special relief, one for its grim irony, the other for its childish absurdity. The first was the reiterated assurance that the Committee would at all times extend to the conditions a sym pathetic attitude. The grim irony lies in the postulate that a tribunal which at that moment was refusing constitutional justice to their compeers, might be trusted to dispense sympathy and jus tice to one who would of necessity be a supplicant at their hands.

The plaint that the criticism was “pin pricking” is—in view of the fact that the Committee for the past ten years have had a perfectly free hand with the hall without a demur from the public —un dignified and petty.

There is far too little healthy criticism in Tonga, and, as a consequence, bureau cracy deems itself sacrosanct, and re gards the slightest breath of criticism as sacrilege.

Cui bono? Mr. Chairman and Com mittee, to what end? For what purpose?

Public sentiment has been antagonised, personal and party feeling has been en gendered, and the hall stands empty. It is a trumpery victory, a cheap exhibition of force majeure.

There is a deep resentment at the lack of consideration for the wishes of a large majority, coupled with profound pity that a body of otherwise reasonable citi zens “clothed with that little brief authority” which wisely directed would promote kindly feeling and command respect, should descend to such tactics, and detract from the dignity and pres tige of all concerned.