Tragedy Of Atimaono

Story of the Rise and Fall of a Tahitian Cotton Enterprise

Section 2.

(From the MS. of J. L. Young, written at Merami, Warren, N.S.W., about 1928, and edited by W. W. Bolton, M.A.)

Comte de la Ronciere.

THE career of Comte de la Ronciere as Governor of Tahiti was so much, af fected by the affairs of the planta tion of Atimaono, and vice versa, that an explanation is in order. There can be no doubt that his administration from 1863 to 1869 was dictated by a sincere desire for the betterment of the popu lation, He caused roads and bridges to be constructed, educational facilities to be extended, an agricultural bank to be founded, and in many other directions favoured progress.

But all this, notwithstanding, there ac cumulated against him strong opposition and even hatred, alike on the part of certain functionaries, the laxity and even dishonesty of whose methods he con demned, and of certain civilians. These latter included not only some of the mer chants of Papeete whose interests clash ed with those of Stewart, but the Pro testant Mission party, who disliked the latter’s mode of life.

Then, again, the Governor had earned

the ill-will of the Catholic Mission by certain action which had been forced on him immediately after his arrival at Papeete, in carrying on an enquiry insti tuted by his predecessor as Governor. His enemies watched for their opportunity, and it came to them in an extraordinary manner in 1869.

James Stewart, the brother of William Stewart, who carried on at Papeete a small mercantile business and who also had a store at Atimaono, managed by one William Keane, having decided to quit Tahiti, sold the contents of the afore said store to Keane, who paid him with an order payable six months after date, drawn by William Stewart on his Auck land agents—the amount was francs 92,- 200. This was really a loan made by William Stewart to Keane to enable him to pay James Stewart and thus facilitate the sale of the store by the latter to Keane.

William Stewart had lent to James Stewart a few weeks before, francs 25,= 000, by an order on his Auckland agents, which order James Stewart had sent to Auckland for collection.

James Stewart then sued his brother William for francs 100,000 composed as follows: Francs 92,000, plus francs 25,000 francs 117,000, less francs 17,000, which James Stewart owed to the plantation— francs 100,000.

In vain, William Stewart pointed out that neither of these notes was due. The judge in the Lower Court gave a verdict in favour of James Stewart, which, on appeal to the Higher Court was confirm ed, and immediate execution of judgment was ordered, and the plantation of Ati maono was seized by the sheriff.

The Governor came to the rescue by instructing the Agricultural Bank (Caisse Agricole) to purchase cotton from the plantation to the value of francs 100,000, and this enabled William Stewart to pay the amount of the unjust judgment.

Both the judges—one a local lawyer and one a functionary—owed their ap pointment to the Governor —no judges from France being available at the time.

Both were personal enemies of Stewart— and, sub rosa, of the Governor and their action against Stewart was dictated as much by feeling against the Governor as against him.

James Stewart with francs 100,000 in his pocket, left Tahiti for Honolulu, leav ing behind him debts to the amount of francs 60,000, and no books of account. (Incidentally, it was reported that not long afterwards he died in gaol abroad, under sentence for fraud).

The Governor removed the two judges and banished ona (the functionary) to Moorea Island, 12 miles away, but at his request allowed him to return soon after wards. The functionary and others of his friends denounced the Governor to the Government at Paris, who ordered the functionary to be reinstated to his post, and recalled the Governor in March, 1869. He, however, remained until Aug ust, 1869, as the newly appointed Gov

emor—on account of illness did not come to Tahiti as expected.

Meantime, the aforesaid functionary conspired with his friends against the Governor, suborned certain interpreters and others to make false statements and to steal certain private documents from his office and, indeed, went so far as to begin to arrange for his seizure and de

portation.

The functionary, however, was prose cuted and finally sentenced to one year’s imprisonment and was sent to San Fran cisco en route to Paris. But the Min ister of Marine telegraphed to the French Consul at San Francisco to send him back to Tahiti.

The Comte de la Ronciere had one good friend, Mr. Louis Jacolliot, a judge at Tahiti who, on his arrival from Paris in March, 1869, was opposed to the Gover nor on account of his removal of the two judges, but who on examination of the affair decided that the Governor was righ,t in interfering with the abuse of justice. He returned to Paris in August, 1869, and took up the defence of the ex- Governor with enthusiasm, as appears from his pamphlet “La Verite sur Tahiti”, Paris, October, 1869 —but without avail.

The influences against the Comte were too great. Even an old scandal of the year 1833, though, long since declared false, was raked up against him, and he went into oblivion. His sympathy with and support of William Stewart’s enter prise was one of the proximate causes of his downfall, hence this extended men tion of him.

Stewart In Sydney ONE of the episodes of Stewart’s ad venturous career was the follow ing:— In 1858, h,e was a wine and spirit mer chant at Sydney, his brother James be ing a Customs House Agent at the same place. In that year, these two conspired with three Customs House officers to avoid payment of duties on 300 cases and casks of wines and spirits, and a quan tity of tobacco, by obtaining certificates of export of the above mentioned articles out of Bond to New Caledonia on the schooner yacht, the “Louisa”, of 78 tons register. The vessel left, ostensibly for Noumea, on September 2, 1858. But it was soon ascertained that the goods had never been placed on board; they were traced to various hotels in Sydney and suburbs.

The “Louisa” returned to Sydney on October 7, but left the same day, after the Stewarts had visited her. She went to Hobart, thence to Jervis Bay, near Sydney, where William Stewart joined her; thence to Lord Howe Island, where the schooner “Martha” was met, having James Stewart, his wife and family aboard, who transhipped to the “Louisa”, which left for an unknown destination.

The “Louisa” was seen again in July, 1860, when Captain Anderson, of the “Marla” met her at Norfolk Island, un der the name of “Mary Ann”, Captain Wilson in command. The name “Louisa” was distinctly visible under the new paint.

It has been stated, since the death of William Stewart, that the “Louisa” pro ceeded from Lord Howe Island to a South American port, calling at Bora Bora Is land on her return towards New Zea land where, during 1859 and 1860, arms and ammunition were supplied from her to the Maori warriors.

The account of the Sydney episode was published in the “South Austra lian”, of July, 1917, under the heading “The Notorious Louisa”, written by a member of the Australian Historical So ciety.

Life of Stewart ... . . 11TILLIAM STEWART was bom m the ? ▼ north of Ireland in 1825, of Scotch Presbyterian ancestors. He was tall, fully six feet in height, of a striking presence, with a long black beard and black hair (.but partly bald) and with piercing dark eyes, widely opened and set well apart. He was well educated, speaking Prench, some Spanish and Portuguese, and some Hindustani. He had been in the army in India as a young man and, subsequently, in the wine business in Spain and Portugal. He was a man of the world, a good judge of wines and

liquors, but rarely drank to excess; he played cards but had the reputation of gambling in moderation. He was a charm ing host and companionable with those but masterful and arrogant wit b those who opposed his wishes. He was a strict disciplinarian, but was con sidered by his employees to be always j Us t. He was generous as he proved on many occasions, but could drive hard bar gains in business matters, He died in his house at Atimaono on September 24, 1873, at the age of 48, his death, which was said to be due to nver disease, being undoubtedly hasten ed by chagrin. He died in penury, all

that he had having gone to keep the plantation going. While not actually un der arrest, he was forbidden to leave his residence without permission, he having been declared insolvent.

All those to whom he had extended hospitality and given largesse deserted him. Almost his only consistent visitor, while on his death bed, was a lady who was a descendant of one of the old Mis sionary families. She, and his wife, to whom he had been only recently mar ried, attended to his last moments. He was buried, almost without cere mony and with a very meagre attend ance of mourners, at Mataiea, be tween the main road and the sea, nearly 47 kilometres from Papeete. Several years afterwards, his bones were removed by his widow to the burial plot of her family.

Many years after his death, an in credible story became current, to the ef fect that he did not die in 1873, but es caped from Tahiti in a vessel. But this was only a reflection of the glamour which was associated with Stewart’s ca reer at Tahiti in the minds of those who remembered his outstanding personality.

The writer did not arrive at Tahiti un til some time after Stewart’s death, but was always keenly interested in the de tails of the rise and fall of the Ati maono enterprise, and had many conver sations with those who were closely con nected with Stewart in business, and as

employees, etc.

Thus, when the writer subsequently be came owner of one-fifth of the Atimaono Estate, there fell into his hands maps, plans and documents relating to the his tory of the same, and he obtained access to numerous letters, etc., all of which en abled him to reconstruct in a measure the romance of Atimaono and of William Stewart.

There is no intention to paint him as other than he was. During part of his career he was apparently what is called an adventurer, with but little scruples of honesty, but it is not on record that during his residence at Tahiti he was ever justifiably accused of dishonesty.

Whatever his faults—and they were many —he was certainly sincere in his belief in, and devotion to the Atimaono enter prise. He carried the burden on his own shoulders —almost every man’s hand was against him. He failed through no fault of his own, and his end was pathetic.

In a world in which are so many weak lings it is refreshing to meet a strong man, an organiser and administrator, even with all his faults of omission and com mission. It would be easy to point a moral by Stewart’s career, but let us leave him saying with the Spaniard: “Que sea su juez Dios” (Let God be his Judge).