The news magazine of the South Pacific · since 1930

Pacific Islands Monthly, 22 October 1937Vol. VIII, No. 3

German Administration

pp. 54-55 · Read in the full issue

in New Guinea A Rabaul Reply to Mr. Humphries

Letter to the Editor jV/fR. W. R. HUMPHRIES, of Papua, in his censure of the German Adminis tration in New Guinea (P. 7.37., August issue), states he travelled through 200 miles of New Guinea territory that was formerly German, but he made no investigation.

I have travelled through thousands if miles of this territory and have made every investigation. I had to—my life depended on it as I was not travelling with hordes of armed police boys. After spending many years in ex-German New Guinea, probably more years than Mr.

that he is wrong in every particular.

Firstly, the Germans had to bring the coastal districts under control, then build headquarters and stations. Whilst they were doing this by no means easy job, as the salt water “boys” are invariably more cunning than the bush “boys,”

Germans were traversing the interior with teams of Malays and “boys” shoot in S birds of paradise and planting big areas on the coast in the off seasons f ro m the profits derived from the birds, 1 have vivid recollections of meeting “Kar-Kar” Schmidt, Eidelbach, Solt wedel, and many other German pioneers years before Mr. Humphries made his recorded trip, and in places where no Administration official has penetrated even yet. 1 also met that splendid German Baum, who was murdered by natives fairly recently whilst opening uo new country for our Administration, We have occupied ex-German New Guinea for 23 years and had a flying start being provided with hospitals,

a really wonderful medical service, wharves, all buildings, and a fleet of large inter-island steamers. Yet we are still dependant on old German charts.

We have done little charting or marine surveying, and that little in coastal regions.

After 23 years of our marvellous Ad ministration huge areas of N.G. are still “uncontrolled,” although the opening up that has been done has been made pos sible mostly by civilians such as the Morobe “Big Six,” the Leahy Bros., the Fox Bros, and other miners and pro spectors. Had Mr. Humphries in vestigated (such an essential proceeding he triumphantly denies) he would have been shown maps of the interior with Kempf’s mining concessions plainly marked and registered long before he knew where Morobe was.

For an official of Papua with its years of deficits and subsidy beggings to criticise German New Guinea is similar to an Arnhem Land aboriginal criticising the modern city of Sydney. After many years of development huge areas of Papua are proudly proclaimed by the Papuan Administration to be “uncon trolled,” and remain closed to business men of Australia whose enterprise would help lift the burden of the Papuan sub sidy from the shoulders of the Australian taxpayer.

As a Britisher owning property in ex- German N.G. and a returned soldier, I consider that the greatest calamity that ever befell the N.G, natives was the change from German Administration.

There was an infinitely better relation ship existing between the Germans and the natives than exists with us British people.

If Mr. Humphries is an attentive reader of the P. 7. Monthly or the Rahaul Times he must have noted the sinister trend of events.

It speaks volumes for the “bright altruistic feelings towards the owners of the land” (Mr. Humphries’ phrase) that no N.G. Administration dwelling is erected without elaborate wired-in sleep ing quarters for the protection of officials’ wives and children. This was

unknown in the German time when wide open doors and windows was the order of the day.

Unfortunately, barbed-wire entangle ments cannot be carried around the streets. White women have been dragged off the main roads of Rabaul in broad daylight by natives, one an official’s wife, another a missionary. Why not re civilise Rabaul and Port Moresby before dreaming of the ‘ vast regions beyond” —again Mr. Humphries’ grandiloquent phraseology.

I am, etc.,

Redrabit.

Rabaul, T.N.G.,

Sept. 11, 1937.

EDITORIAL NOTE. —Reference is made to the foregoing letter in an article on page 56 entitled “What Is Wrong In New Guinea?”