“Lover Of Justice” Is Trounced!

Letter to the Editor.

PARTICIPATION in disputes with anonymous correspondents is not to my liking, nor do I Generally take notice particularly of either the subject matter or the text of their flights into the realms of literature.

However, in justice to the residents of New Guinea, amongst whom I have lived for thirteen years, I now seek the medium of your valued journal to comment upon certain statements contained in a letter appearing in your issue of March, from “Lover of Justice,” in reply to equally anonymous contributions to your December issue from “Veri” and “Duk-Duk,” on the question of Corporal Punishment of Natives,” and “The Introduction of the Jury System to New Guinea.

I do not desire, or intend in this letter, to enter the field of debate regarding the desirability, practicability, or necessity, for the introduction of the one, nor the elaboration of existing Laws of the Territory, regarding the other, of the subject matters of your correspondents’ contributions.

There are obviously varied opinions regarding both subjects.

I have heard them discussed in many parts of New Guinea and under varied circumstances — generally fairly and reasonably, and with respect for the other fellow’s point of view, and with toleration and moderation.

I have never, however, participated in or listened to any discussion on either subject, where such bias, misrepresentation of fact, unreasoned prejudice or blatant ignorance of the civic qualities of the great bulk of this Territory’s residents have been shown as are demonstrated in certain statements contained in the letter of your correspondent styling himself “Lover of Justice.”

These statements or opinions to which I refer are not arguments against the “Infliction of Corporal Punishment,” or “The Introduction of a Jury System,” but vicious untruths attacking the integrity and decency of those who oppose the views of this self-styled protagonist of justice and the civic qualities of practically the whole community of New Guinea.

Your correspondent expresses the opinion that “if anything will prompt Geneva, Canberra, or the local Administration to tighten up laws for the protection of the native races it will be the perpetual hate now at white heat seeking to legalise barbarity in the Territory.”

During the thirteen years of my residence in this Territory, I have travelled, either officially, or in a private capacity, somewhat extensively within its boundaries. I have met all types and classes of residents, from those of the collar-and-tie brigade to those who live by the sweat of the brow; shoving pens or breaking bush, patrolling littleknown areas, performing the arduous tasks—and they are multiple in number—of extending Administrative control, or the possibly more heart breaking jobs of recruiting labour, seeking gold, preparing virgin tropic bush to wrest a livelihood from Mother Earth, and the hundred and one avocations followed by an enterprising community.

With these residents I have discussed, both in the larger centres —the civilised places—and in the outer reaches—where work is performed and difficulties are met with to be dealt with on the spot

—their many and varied problems, learned much of their difficulties and, I hope, their point of view; but I have yet to meet with this consuming, passionate hatred, seeking to legalise barbarity in the Territory, referred to by your contributor.

The statement is a false one with no vestige of truth to support it. I venture the suggestion that it is not subscribed to by one single responsible resident of New Guinea, by the present or any past Administrator. No responsible official, planter, miner, recruiter, businessman or missionary, knowing New Guinea and the type of resident living there, and his general outlook on matters affecting his own and native welfare, will support this extravagant and untrue opinion expressed by your contributor.

In my opinion, his statement can only be regarded as the product of a jaundiced mind, and a perverted outlook, offering a gratuitous insult to a community whose general ethical and moral out look is, I venture to suggest, of at least as high a standard as his own or that of any other with which “Lover of Justice” may be fortunate enough to find himself associated.

Apparently, so bitterly opposed to the introduction of the jury system to New Guinea is your contributor, that he goes on again to condemn

his fellow-residents in an extravagant and unwarranted tirade which questions the whole moral outlook of the community, at the same time displaying a colossal ignorance of the people to whom he refers.

The following remarks of “Lover of Justice,” can only be regarded as offensive, insulting and grossly untrue—being without foundation in fact— by the vast majority of New Guinea residents: — “The introduction of the jury system would certainly benefit and unjustly protect the whites . . .

It would absolutely rob the native of the protection of law.” “The Jury System would mean the collapse of law in the Territory.” “The work of Police, District Officers, C.L.O., and Judges would be at the mercy of cliques whose ingrained aversion would prejudice and blind them in any case where Black would be against White”! “Twelve jurymen could never be empanelled in this Territory to return a verdict of guilty against a European” !!

These extravaganzas are in keeping with the statement already referred to. They are as untrue and lacking foundation in fact or experience.

It is difficult to visualise the mentality and out look of the writer responsible for them; to imagine just what niche he fills in the general scheme of New Guinea affairs; to understand why he continues to live with this community of barbarians and sadists; most difficult of all to understand when and where in this Territory and amongst which section in particular of its community his experiences have led him to make such sweeping and damning charges, against the com-

mon-sense and honesty, decency and civic pride of the community in general.

Were there a vestige of truth in any one of these sweepmg charges against the residents of New Guinea, then not only would the Government of the Territory rightly stand charged with failure in the Administration of its Mandate, but its residents could justly be described as a pack of blackguards, who should be deprived of all rights

of citizenship.

Fortunately for New Guinea and all concerned, these dirty and scurrilous accusations made behind the doubtful barricade of a nom-de-plume (which belies its name) would never bear the light of even a cursory investigation. Under the circumstances the best advice I can tender to this so-called ‘Lover of Justice” is that he wipes the dust of New Guinea from his feet, and takes a trio preferably to the Sahara Desert, or some equally uninhabited spot, and there, alone with his thoughts and his data, proceeds in “the logical, sane traditional manner to survey the evidence” upon which he tries to convict a community of decent-minded Australians as a pack of barbarians.

I am, etc.,

J. C. Mullaly.

Non-official Member Executive and Legislative Council. President, Planters’ Association.

Nataya Plantation,

via Rabaul, New Guinea. 20/5/’35.