The Land Commission has been in many senses unfortunate.The original German member,a gentleman of the name of Eggert,fell early into precarious health;his work was from the first interrupted,he was at last (to the regret of all that knew him)invalided home;and his successor had but just arrived.In like manner,the first American commissioner,Henry C.Ide,a man of character and intelligence,was recalled (I believe by private affairs)when he was but just settling into the spirit of the work;and though his place was promptly filled by ex-Governor Ormsbee,a worthy successor,distinguished by strong and vivacious common sense,the break was again sensible.The English commissioner,my friend Bazett Michael Haggard,is thus the only one who has continued at his post since the beginning.And yet,in spite of these unusual changes,the Commission has a record perhaps unrivalled among international commissions.It has been unanimous practically from the first until the last;and out of some four hundred cases disposed of,there is but one on which the members were divided.It was the more unfortunate they should have early fallen in a difficulty with the chief justice.The original ground of this is supposed to be a difference of opinion as to the import of the Berlin Act,on which,as a layman,it would be unbecoming if I were to offer an opinion.But it must always seem as if the chief justice had suffered himself to be irritated beyond the bounds of discretion.It must always seem as if his original attempt to deprive the commissioners of the services of a secretary and the use of a safe were even senseless;and his step in printing and posting a proclamation denying their jurisdiction were equally impolitic and undignified.The dispute had a secondary result worse than itself.The gentleman appointed to be Natives'Advocate shared the chief justice's opinion,was his close intimate,advised with him almost daily,and drifted at last into an attitude of opposition to his colleagues.He suffered himself besides (being a layman in law)to embrace the interest of his clients with something of the warmth of a partisan.Disagreeable scenes occurred in court;the advocate was more than once reproved,he was warned that his consultations with the judge of appeal tended to damage his own character and to lower the credit of the appellate court.Having lost some cases on which he set importance,it should seem that he spoke unwisely among natives.A sudden cry of colour prejudice went up;and Samoans were heard to assure each other that it was useless to appear before the Land Commission,which was sworn to support the whites.
This deplorable state of affairs was brought to an end by the departure from Samoa of the Natives'Advocate.He was succeeded PRO TEMPORE by a young New Zealander,E.W.Gurr,not much more versed in law than himself,and very much less so in Samoan.
Whether by more skill or better fortune,Gurr has been able in the course of a few weeks to recover for the natives several important tracts of land;and the prejudice against the Commission seems to be abating as fast as it arose.I should not omit to say that,in the eagerness of the original advocate,there was much that was amiable;nor must I fail to point out how much there was of blindness.Fired by the ardour of pursuit,he seems to have regarded his immediate clients as the only natives extant and the epitome and emblem of the Samoan race.Thus,in the case that was the most exclaimed against as "an injustice to natives,"his client,Puaauli,was certainly nonsuited.But in that intricate affair who lost the money?The German firm.And who got the land?
Other natives.To twist such a decision into evidence,either of a prejudice against Samoans or a partiality to whites,is to keep one eye shut and have the other bandaged.
And lastly,one word as to the future.Laupepa and Mataafa stand over against each other,rivals with no third competitor.They may be said to hold the great name of Malietoa in commission;each has borne the style,each exercised the authority,of a Samoan king;one is secure of the small but compact and fervent following of the Catholics,the other has the sympathies of a large part of the Protestant majority,and upon any sign of Catholic aggression would have more.With men so nearly balanced,it may be asked whether a prolonged successful exercise of power be possible for either.In the case of the feeble Laupepa,it is certainly not;we have the proof before us.Nor do I think we should judge,from what we see to-day,that it would be possible,or would continue to be possible,even for the kingly Mataafa.It is always the easier game to be in opposition.The tale of David and Saul would infallibly be re-enacted;once more we shall have two kings in the land,-the latent and the patent;and the house of the first will become once more the resort of "every one that is in distress,and every one that is in debt,and every one that is discontented."Against such odds it is my fear that Mataafa might contend in vain;it is beyond the bounds of my imagination that Laupepa should contend at all.Foreign ships and bayonets is the cure proposed in Mulinuu.And certainly,if people at home desire that money should be thrown away and blood shed in Samoa,an effect of a kind,and for the time,may be produced.Its nature and prospective durability I will ask readers of this volume to forecast for themselves.There is one way to peace and unity:that Laupepa and Mataafa should be again conjoined on the best terms procurable.
There may be other ways,although I cannot see them;but not even malevolence,not even stupidity,can deny that this is one.It seems,indeed,so obvious,and sure,and easy,that men look about with amazement and suspicion,seeking some hidden motive why it should not be adopted.
To Laupepa's opposition,as shown in the case of the Lauati scheme,no dweller in Samoa will give weight,for they know him to be as putty in the hands of his advisers.It may be right,it may be wrong,but we are many of us driven to the conclusion that the stumbling-block is Fangalii,and that the memorial of that affair shadows appropriately the house of a king who reigns in right of it.If this be all,it should not trouble us long.Germany has shown she can be generous;it now remains for her only to forget a natural but certainly ill-grounded prejudice,and allow to him,who was sole king before the plenipotentiaries assembled,and who would be sole king to-morrow if the Berlin Act could be rescinded,a fitting share of rule.The future of Samoa should lie thus in the hands of a single man,on whom the eyes of Europe are already fixed.Great concerns press on his attention;the Samoan group,in his view,is but as a grain of dust;and the country where he reigns has bled on too many august scenes of victory to remember for ever a blundering skirmish in the plantation of Vailele.It is to him -to the sovereign of the wise Stuebel and the loyal Brandeis,-that I make my appeal.
MAY 25,1892.
End
