Mere Offensiveness!

When Statistics Speak Louder Than Mere Offensiveness!

History of German Colonisation In New Guinea

Letter to the Editor.

unnecessarily offensive letter of “Redrabit” in the October number ot the in which he not only at tacks Mr. W. R. Humphries’ views of 20 years ago, but the Administrations of both Papua and New Guinea, contains no clear ideas and is self-contradictory.

Mr. Humphries’ “first-hand impres sions” of German Administration in N.G. made (as he stated) without investi gation, as he passed through on his pat rol with six police in 1917, from the Papuan Gulf to Huon Gulf, in German New Guinea, was generally acknowledged at the time as a correct estimate of what was understood to be Germany’s policy

of colonial administration. Namely—to concentrate upon the coastal and settled areas, and to leave the interior untouched until such time as the needs of the settle ments demanded their attention.

The fact that “Redrabit”, in his inland travels, came across Germans, with Malays, shooting birds-of-paradise, years before Mr. Humphries’ visit, and such pioneers as Schmidt, Eidlebach, and Soltwedel, hardly indicates administra tive activities in the interior.

On the rare occasions when German officers of the New Guinea Administra tion penetrated into the interior, their efforts were usually concentrated upon some special investigation, such as Cap tain Detzner’s expedition from Morobe in 1914, when, accompanied by Sergeant Konradt, 25 armed police, 45 carriers, and four attendants, he set forth to sur vey the boundary line.

That the policy of concentration along the costal areas was recognised as an established part of German colonial pro cedure, both in Africa and New Guinea, can be gathered from a report of Count Dernburg (Secretary of State for Ger man Colonies) when, in referring to the colonies in Africa in 1907, he denounced the German system: “Where expenditure was concentrated upon the adornment of the towns and the comfort of the towns people, to the neglect of the natives of the interior.”

It has been stated that Germans made many mistakes in the early days of colonial administration. The lack of colonial experience and often the lack of sympathy with, or the understanding of, native people over whom they had assumed a protectorate, were contributing causes in the retarded development of their colonies.

Comparison of the conditions under

which German New Guinea and Papua were first established is impracticable.

German New Guinea was annexed as a commercial enterprise—Papua purely be cause of its strategic importance.

German New Guinea was from 1885 to 1899 (except for three years 1889-92) under the administration of the New Guinea Company, an amalgamation of a number of firms, who had been granted a charter by the Imperial Government to administer the territory. Repeated complaints against the company’s organi sation forced the Imperial Government to take over the reins, and an agreement was made, and ratified in 1899 with the Reichstag, by which the possession and administration was transferred to the Empire, in return for a subsidy of £20,000 a year, to be continued for 10 years. The company retained extensive rights for its development.

The Imperial Government, besides this measure, heavily subsidised their own Administration and, with the assistance given to the firm Norddeutscher Lloyd (which since 1885 had been granted four million marks annually for 15 years to foster German trade in the Pacific and Australia and in the Medi terranean) the colony, unhampered by altruism in their relation with the nat ives, had ample means to carry out an expensive and elaborate programme for the comfort of the settlements and the development of the coastlands.

In very few, if any, of the German colonies, did local revenue meet local ex penditure. The deficiency between re venue and expenditure was met by sub sidies from the Imperial Government. In German East Africa, for instance, in no case during the first 21 years of its existence as a colony, had the local re venue reached 60 per cent, of local ex penditure.

From the time when, in 1884, Great Britain declared a protectorate over what now is known as Papua, Australia has expended less than £2,000,000 on the up keep and development of the territory.

During the past 30 years, Government in fluence has been spread and consolidated and very little remains to establish law and order in the remotest corners of the country. The budget, at the end of the financial year 1936-7, showed that Papua had completed one of the best years in its history—and that without a wealthy mining industry to bolster up its revenue.

Papua, surely, shows a creditable re cord of colonial administration. In both native and commercial achievements the Territory compares favourably with other colonies having similar conditions.

I am, etc.,

Blue Fox.

Port Moresby, 24/11/37.

Mrs. A. Barker, wife of Hon. Alport Barker, proprietor of the Fiji Times and Herald, was a passenger for Vancouver by the November Niagara from Suva.

Mr. J. R. Neville, Chief Officer of the Fiji Government’s yacht Pioneer, sailed from Suva by the November Aorangi on leave.