[?]go Pago,

[?] Ernor Sued

[?]ased Out of [?]go Pago, [?]uple Allege

XEGING that they and their family had been chased out of ) Pago, Robert L. Ketner and wife. Arlene, claimed 100,000 irs in damages from the Governor Eastern Samoa (Mr. Richard B. :e) in a suit filed at Honolulu on ch 12. le suit alleged that the ners had been living peaceably lastern Samoa for seven months, nning in October, 1953, but that Governor had “commenced a •se of conduct calculated to iss them and to interfere with r civil rights”. was alleged that the Governor referred to them “in terms of m and ridicule”, such as “South drifters” and “a person whose ence is no longer desired in Territory (meaning American toa) ”. le suit further alleged that Mr. aer had left “under threat of station, under escort of an ed guard and against his con itional rights”. His wife and 3 remained, as Mrs. Ketner was )usly ill from the treatment she received, the complaint stated, later joined her husband, ae Ketners claimed that the ernor had prevented their return alleged that his actions “were tout lawful justification and *essive”. r. Ketner, a former school her at Denver, Colorado, went Washington last year to protest .nst his removal, but the US irior Dept. supported the ernor, who was reported to have Ted Ketner to leave American ma on the grounds that he was ag to take business away from Samoans. Mr. Ketner said, ever, that he was trying to help Samoans earn a better living teaching them handicrafts.

IN their announcement on April 15. the P-NG Administration left itself a loop-hole of escape—the embargo was not to be lifted until June 1.

In the meantime, mill-owners had met representatives of the Depart ment of Territories in Canberra, and offered to export rice from Aus tralia for an f.o.b. Sydney price of £65 per ton—£lB less than the price charged before the P-NG Adminis tration (through the Director of Health, Dr. Gunther) made it plain that “the P-NG consumer cannot be expected to subsidise the Aus tralian rice industry any longer.”

In consideration of the drop of £lB in the Australian f.o.b. price, the embargo on foreign rice is to be imposed again. That, at least, is what the Rice Millers’ represent ative has intimated to PIM.

Eastern rice is still about £7 under the Australian price—but no doubt most people will be happy to accept the Australian compromise.

Rice to certain specifications is re quired under the P-NG Native Labour Regulations and this could be a complicating factor in import ing from Eastern countries.

Government methods have suc ceeded this time in getting the price of rice down to reasonable limits — and doubtless consumers will re joice. Nonetheless, these embargoes that can be put on, taken off, and reimposed, reflect oddly on Canberra dictatorship, and we are reminded of an incident that occurred in Port Moresby during the sitting there last year of the Tariff Board Inquiry into rubber.

Mr. E. V. Crisp, in giving evidence at that time, remarked that he was prohibited from buying rice from anywhere but Australia although he could obtain it for £24 per ton less from the East.

The Chairman of the inquiry was hard to convince that this was a matter of Australian Government decree —that to use his own words, “the Commonwealth Government could come into this Territory and say, ‘You have to pass an ordinance about so-and-so.’ ”

Mr. Crisp had to assure him that to the best of his belief that that was so.