“That Archaic

Trinity”

Governor’s Remark Causes Stir in Fiji

From Our Own Correspondent

Suva, Jan. 7.

Cir Maynard Hedstrom Has Re

° signed from the Legislative and Ex ecutive Councils of Fiji, in circumstances which caused something of a stir.

At the end of November, there was a debate in the Legislative Council on the Government’s estimates. Certain of the Indian members criticised the Governor’s proposal to spend public money in pro viding free quarters for public servants; and, in support of their arguments, they quoted speeches made in other years by European members. In reply the Gover nor (Sir Arthur Richards) said this: “The right to free quarters is not a newly created one.

“I was interested to hear that archaic trinity, Sir Henry Marks, Sir Henry Scott, and Sir Maynard Hedstrom, quoted once more in this Council, whose views on this subject are so notoriously out of date. They have an antiquarian interest, it is true, but it seems to me nothing more than that.

“It is a duty of Government to pro vide officers with quarters; it is a duty which has not been generally admitted in this Colony, but I hope that it is now admitted as a goal towards which we should strive, and so long as I am Governor of this Colony I shall continue to strive to provide Government officials with suitable quarters. It would be dif ferent if there were any houses suffi ciently good for renting in Suva, but there are no such houses. Therefore, it is necessary for Government to undertake a burden which private enterprise has not found suitably profitable, or possibly has neglected because of other better opportunities of investing its money.

Sir Maynard Hedstrom saw a report of this in Honolulu, on his way home from the Orient; and, in Suva, on December 22, he wrote to the Governor protesting strongly against “the con temptuous tone” of the remarks made by the King’s representative, when sneaking from his place in the Legis lative Council. He said: “I believe it is without precedent in this Colony for a Governor publicly to criticise in this

manner a member of the Legislative and Executive Councils. If I had been in my place in the Council, with an op portunity to reply, I would not have re garded the matter so seriously.”

The Governor replied, on December 24, that Sir Maynard had read into his re marks much that was not there.

“There was nothing contemptuous either in the tone or the matter of what I said in Council. I can find nothing contemptuous even in the ‘Fiji Times’ account, which you quote, taken out of its context and not professing to be a verbatim report. Nor was there any thing contemptuous in my intentions. I wanted to make clear my opinion that certain views publicly enunciated some years ago by certain gentlemen are out of date to-day. . .

His Excellency declared that his re marks were not contemptuous of or de rogatory to anyone.

Sir Maynard replied on December 30: “I regret I cannot accept the interpre tation which you give to your words, but must, accept rather the meaning placed upon'them by my friends and the public generally. The remainder of Your Excellency’s letter is irrelevant.

“I have served the Colony for 29 years as a member of Legislative Council, and for over 20 years as a member of Executive Council, and during tha.t period I have always received courtesy and re spect from successive Governors. I am not now prepared to serve a Governor who. during mv absence from the Colony, has spoken of me publicly in the way your Excellency has done.

“Therefore, I tender my resignation from the Legislative and Executive Councils and request that the corres pondence on this subject, be placed be fore the Right Honourable the Secretary of State for the Colonies at the earliest possible date.”

His Excellency replied accepting, with regret, Sir Maynard’s resignation, and he thanked him for past services.

Editorial Note.

Sir Maynard Hedstrom is head of the big firm of Morris Hedstrom Ltd.; Sir Henry Scott is Fiji’s leading lawyer; Sir Henry Marks is a merchant and has been 50 years in Fiji. All three men have given most notable services to the Colony, in all kinds of offices. During 40 years, Sir Henry Marks filled practically every position in public life to which the Government could appoint him. He is now a man of advanced years, and he is in poor health. The other two are robust men of middle age, capable still of rendering valuable public service.

In the circumstances. His Excellency’s choice of words was a little unfortunate.

He surely was entitled to say that the views quoted by the Indian Members were out of date; but, “that archaic trinity”—! The words have only one meaning, and they would strike 95 per cent, of people as having been used con temptuously.

There are features of the incident which are puzzling. One could under stand that this young and new governor was trapped by a liking for a happy phrase; but, having once recognised the very natural resentment of Sir Maynard and the other men dubbed “archaic,” he easily could have secured a mutually honour able peace by explanation and apology.

For some unknown reason, he took the opposite course.