Bishop v. Planter

THROUGH the columns of the “North ern Daily Leader,” published in Tamworth, NSW, Mr. A. E. Grid land, formerly a Resident Magistrate in Papua, and a rubber planter on the north-east coast until the invasion, has been carrving on a lively controversy with the Right Rev. J. S. Moyes, Bishop of Armidale.

The Bishop, several months ago, speak ing in St. Andrew’s Cathedral, sharply criticised the Australian system of inden turing native labourers; and. when his statements were published. Mr. Cridland challenged them. The discussion, as it developed, showed that the Bishop was arguing from general principles, and baling much of what he said on the pub lished opinions of Professor Elkin, the Svdney University anthropologist ’ Mr.

Cridland was not concerned with theories and ideals: he ouoted the actual exneri ences of a practical man, who had been 25 years in Panua as an administrative officer and planter.

The Bishop accepted many of Mr.

Cridland’s facts, and their implications; and admitted that “indentured labour, with its honest effort to ensure fair treatment, is better than free labour.”

But. he said that we have no right to °o in and exploit these Territories simple because the natives are not strong enough to ston us; and that we should train them to become a self-supporting and self-governing people.

So the discussion ended as all such dis cussions must end. People with their feet on the earth say that we must occupy and hold, the Territories, for our own protection; the Bishops sav we should keen out. and leave the natives to mis sionary care. The only possible compro mise, of course, is to use the labour svs tem fairlv for the betterment of the native peoples.