“Pay-Back” In New Guinea

THE murder of Captain Bernard Mc- Grath, in the Ramu area of the INew Guinea goldfields, on February 17, has attracted a good deal of attention; and it is noted that, based on this tragic occurrence, a lot of criticism is being directed against the Administration and the Federal Government.

Mr. S. G. Farnham, writing from Upper Ramu, New Guinea, to the Melbourne Argus, reminds readers that the murder of McGrath was preceded in this area by the murder of A. D. O. Ian Mack, and that Patrol Officer McCarthy was severely wounded. Cadet Black was also savagely attacked and wounded, Mr. Farnham pleads urgently for very much stronger measures against the “savages” in this part of New Guinea. in the Argus of April 6 the following letter is published. The writer is Mrs.

Nerva Levy, a sister of Bernard Me- Grath: — A terrible indictment of the Government’s futile methods in New Guinea in leaving the white pioneer in the uncontrolled hinterland to the mercy of the

savage natives, and then after his murder calling in a few district officers and a handful of native police boys to search for the murderers over hundreds of miles of impenetrable wilderness, is made by Mr. Sydney Farnham, of Upper Ramu in "The Argus" of April 5. From Mr.

Farnham’s list of recent murders of white men is omitted Mr. Baum who was beaten to death with stone clubs and then terribly mutilated. My brother, Captain Bernard McGrath, was murdered on the Karamanting River by savages of the Bena Bena tribe after 15 years of pioneering work in the inland. There, on the fringe of the most unknown country in the world, a few Australians, unassisted and unprotected, are penetrating farther and farther inland, blazing a track for others to follow — their only reward a horrible and violent death, while an uninterested Administration and a bunch of parliamentarians at Canberra are indifferent to their efforts, and sensitive only to uninformed comment on Government treatment of the native races.

The foregoing is typical of the views

expressed by many people and supports

their general argument. It represents the

generally accepted viewpoint of the

sturdy European pioneer, who has

pushed out over all the world, and who

has driven the aboriginal inhabitants of other lands into subjection or has ex terminated them and has seized their countries for the purposes of his vigorous colonisation. But there is another point of view.

As is pointed out elsewhere in this issue by a well-known author, New Guinea is practically the last corner of the earth’s surface where the native in habitants still wander free and un checked, in their primitive condition, uninfluenced by the white man. Had it not been for the discovery of gold, it is likely that this exceedingly broken, jungle-clad land of New Guinea would have remained in its primitive condition for many more decades. But the pres ence of gold has been proved, and the white man is thrusting forward eagerly and tirelessly in his search for it. In evitably, he has come into conflict with the native people, and some of the pioneers have been killed. Why should the advance of civilisation and our organised effort to obtain gold be delayed or interrupted by these ignorant savages? —ask the white men, and they are turn

ing indignantly to their Government with demands for adequate protection.

And now look at the other side of the question—and it is the side which neces sarily concerns the Government. It has been accepted as a fundamental principle of international relationships that a country belongs to its native inhabitants.

That principle was established at Ver sailles in 1919. It is the base upon which mandates to govern were issued to Great Britain, and to other nations.

Australia holds the mandate for New Guinea, on the clearly-expressed under standing that Australia is merely the trustee for the League of Nations; and the League of Nations is based upon the plan that the lands of the earth belong to the people who are described as the indigent population.

It is quite impossible, therefore, under present conditions, for the New Guinea Administration to take any notice of the argument that New Guinea belongs to Australia, that Australia is entitled to exploit that country’s natural wealth in whatever fashion she thinks fit and that, if the native inhabitants interfere, the native inhabitants must be swept away.

As plain, common-sense folk, we know that the League of Nations is practically dead, and will soon be buried, and that, in actual fact, New Guinea is now as much a part of Australia as is the Northern Territory; but forms and for malities still have to be observed by the Commonwealth Government, as the Mandatory. We know that Australian enterprise, as the years pass, will be very active in the exploitation of the enormous natural wealth of New Guinea; but we know, also, that the Australian Govern ment, whether Conservative or Labour, will be most scrupulous in protecting the interests of the native inhabitants. There is not the slightest prospect of punitive expeditions being sent into New Guinea to slaughter a few hundreds or thousands of these primitive natives, and so to clear the way for the gold-prospecting parties.

The new humanitarianism which dictates governmental policies nowadays forbids anything like that.

But, in this New Guinea situation, there is a more pronounced and definite factor than any we have mentioned.

Any man who has studied the native peoples of Papua and New Guinea knows that the tribal life of those primi tive men is dominated by two considera tions —readiness for war, and the obligation to “pay-back.” It is a fundamental rule of native life that an injury done

to a tribe in the person of one of its members shall be paid back in kind.

That is something ingrained in the character of the New Guinea native, in the same way that respect for private property or the obligation to tell the truth is ingrained in the character of the cultured European. The rule of “pay back” is a well-known thing in New Guinea, and any official charged with responsibility of governing these primi tive people must recognise it.

There is no doubt that “hard-boiled” prospectors and traders, with no know ledge of or sympathy with native psychology, have treated these fierce and spirited New Guinea natives on occasion with injustice, cruelty and lack of understanding, and thus have committed an injury which brought into operation the “law of pay-back.” To the native, all white men are the same—and the misconduct of one white man has been frequently the cause of attacks on other white men. Those who know the Ramu region declare that, without any doubt, the murder of Baum, Ian Mack and Bernard McGrath (who understood and were kind to the natives), and the sharp attacks on various patrol officers and prospectors, are part of the system of “pay-back.” It is as logical to go out into the bush and shoot down these natives for the murders referred to as it would be to shoot them down for having black skins. If we did that, we should ourselves be invoking the savages’ own law of “pay-back.”

The Administration very wisely recog nises this. It accepts a certain responsi bility for the protection of gold-seekers and traders; but it also accepts an obli gation towards the natives which is based upon a knowledge of native psychology and of the facts to which we have re ferred. It hopes to bring these wild bush peoples, gradually and slowly, to a bet ter understanding of the white man’s laws and the white man’s culture; and when these things are accepted in New Guinea, as they are in Papua, the white men may go into the far interior of New Guinea with the same comparative safety that they now enter the hinterland of Papua. It seems to us that the N.G.

Administration is following generally the lines laid down as a result of the experience of that wisest of all Mela nesian Administrators —Sir Hubert Mur ray. While slowly establishing the white man’s law and discipline, he always has set his face resolutely against wholesale or bitter punishment of natives for doing

things which, in the white man’s view, are crimes, but which actually are rooted in native custom and tradition. Little by little, with extraordinary patience, he has sought the confidence of the native people and, following that rule, is bring ing them to a respect for the white man’s laws and prejudices.

We are not making an invidious dis tinction between New Guinea and Papua.

Such a comparison would be improper and unfair. Australia has been 50 years in Papua, and less than 15 in New Guinea. Moreover, it is barely seven years since gold-mining interests began to penetrate the Morobe district of New Guinea, which was then officially labelled “uncontrolled.” Taking these things into consideration, it can be said that Australia’s record in New Guinea is as good as it is in Papua; and that its success in dealing with and protect ing the Pacific Islands natives generally will bear favourable comparison with the achievements of any colonising nation.

For these reasons, it is to be hoped that the authorities will not be stampeded into any extreme action in New Guinea as the result of criticism by people who feel justifiable distress owing to recent tragic events, but who have little under standing of native psychology and the immutable, savage law of “pay-back.”