(Inclosure.)-Abstract of a Letter to His Majesty Malietoa, King of Samoa, from the Natives' Advocate. YOUR Majesty did me the honour to place in my hands the care of the interests of Samoans in the investigation of foreigners' titles to lands in Samoa. I accepted the position only after much deliberation, because I thought the trust so responsible and important. I expected many difficulties, hard work, and a great deal of anger from foreign claimants whose titles it would often be my duty to contest. But I have met with one difficulty which I did not expect, and which I ought not to be called upon to contend with. I mean the manifest disregard of native rights hitherto shown by the Commissioners, which has led them so far even as to set aside the just provisions of the Berlin Treaty for the protection of those rights. 1. The Commission claim the right to decide and finally settle disputed claims; yet the only public notice they propose to give of the lands claimed was by an "Index of Claims," containing name of claimant, name of parcel of land, and its locality (see printed Rules of Procedure), which was kept on the Commission room's table. Now they are publicly delivering Judgments instead of sending their Reports to the Supreme Court; and they do not yet possess a survey plan of the district, by which to test and on which to accurately locate the claims. 2. Although the Natives' Advocate is manifestly regarded in the Treaty and the Protocols as a necessary part of the Commission, and is to assist the Commission in their investigation of titles to lands, he alone of all connected with it, and the special representative of native interests, was denied access to the deeds and other written evidence lodged with the Commission by claimants. Thus, a limitation was placed upon the Natives' Advocate which confined his assistance to the duties of counsel for native objectors, and excluded him from assisting in the examination of undisputed claims. The Commission have carried their policy of extrusion of the Natives' Advocate so far, that a paper read by a claimant as argument, and afterwards handed to the Commission, has been refused to the Natives' Advocate, on the ground that it is a private paper in the hands of the Commission. 3. Having announced a ruling on the 12th October, 1891, that in the hearings of contested claims the claimant would be regarded as plaintiff and the objector as defendant; that the plaintiff would be required to substantiate his claim by proving that his title was not impeachable under any of the clauses of Article IV of the Treaty; and, having proceeded strictly on those lines till the 9th February, 1892, then the Commission required the native objector to put in evidence before plaintiff had completed his case. The Natives' Advocate appealed to the ruling aforesaid, whereupon a new ruling was made throwing the burden of proof upon the native objector. 4. In the hearing of a contest on Claim No. 3058, the Commissioners received in evidence the papers lodged with Claim 3064. Counsel for objector argued on some of those papers against the claim. He was then told by a Commissioner that the papers of No. 3064 were not put in; and when reminded that some of ther had already been used by claimant, the Commissioner asserted that those now appealed to were forgeries. Yet those papers had been received by the Commission as evidence for the claimant. 5. A Commissioner has repeatedly advised counsel for claimants to "leave well alone," and desist from putting further questions to a witness, and has repeatedly interfered with legitimate cross-examination by the Natives' Advocate of claimant's witnesses. Advantage has been taken of the inexact manner of Samoan speech, and the scanty knowledge of English on the part of the half-caste interpreter, to turn the answers of witnesses to the disadvantage of the native objector and in favour of the claimant. I respectfully submit the above to your Majesty's consideration as facts which have a very momentous bearing upon the interests of Samoans, and which contradict the description of the Commission which the Treaty of 1889 declares shall be appointed. No. 181.--Mr. B. Haggard to the Marquess of Salisbury. Received MY LORD, April 4.) Apia, Samoa, South Seas, February 23, 1892. I HAVE the honour to inclose, for your Lordship's perusal and consideration, respectfully, the following, viz. :— A copy of a letter from the Chief Justice of Samoa to the Samoan Land Commissioners, dated the 13th February, 1892. A copy of a letter from the above to the Commissioners, dated the 18th February, 1892. A copy of a letter from the Samoan Land Commissioners to the Chief Justice of Samoa, dated the 19th February, 1892. Also a joint Memorandum prepared by the Samoan Land Commissioners, for the consideration of their respective Governments, the result of, and arising from, this correspondence (and an interview held) with the Chief Justice. These documents speak for themselves, and will, I trust, show and convince your Lordship that this state of affairs is none of our seeking (us Commissioners). The Land Commissioners were steadily daily proceeding with their work (and have continued to do so), when, to their surprise, this question was raised. I respectfully request that I may receive instructions from your Lordship upon the matter, and I have, &c., The Marquess of Salisbury. BAZETT M. HAGGARD. (Inclosure 1.)-M. Cedercrantz to Sumoan Land Commission. GENTLEMEN, Mulinuu, February 13, 1892. I SHOULD be much obliged if you would be kind enough to let me know, at your earliest convenience, whether the Land Commission in performing their duties have been and are guided by the opinion that the Commissioners, if unanimous, have the power and authority of deciding valid disputed claims. If such has been and is the case, you would oblige me greatly by granting me the favour of a meeting with you at the office of the Court-house at Mulinuu at any time you raay be pleased to appoint, in order to promote an understanding of the interpretation of Article IV of the Berlin General Act. I have, &c., C. CEDERCRANTZ. (Inclosure 2.)—M. Cedercrantz to Samoan Land Commission, [See Inclosure 1 in No. 177, page 959.] (Inclosure 3.)-Samoan Land Commission to M. Cedercrantz, [See Inclosure 2 in No. 177, page 959.] (Inclosure 4.)-Memorandum by Samoan Land Commissioners.— Apia, February 23, 1892. ON the 13th February, 1892, the Samoan Land Commission received from the Chief Justice of Samoa a letter, a copy of which is inclosed herewith, and which they respectfully request may be read in connection with this Memorandum. In compliance with the request contained in the said letter, they saw, and had a protracted interview with, the Chief Justice, on the 15th February instant; the subject for consideration being the interpretation of Article IV of the Berlin General Act of 1889, and which was practically limited by the Chief Justice to sections 6 and 11. Section 6 reads as follows, viz. :— "All disputed claims to land in Samoa shall be reported by the Commission to the Court, together with all the evidence affecting their validity; and the Court shall make final decision thereon in writing, which shall be entered on its record, undisputed claims and such as shall be decided valid by the unanimous voice of the Commission shall be confirmed by the Court in proper form in writing, and be entered of record. " The Chief Justice maintained that the words "as shall be decided valid by the unanimous voice of the Commission" had no reference or application to disputed claims, and only a contingent, or modified application, to undisputed claims; and that it was for him or his Court to decide whether a claim was or was not disputed; and, also, that it was his prerogative to say up to what point of time, prior to the final ending of the case, a disputant might enter; and, also, as to who might or might not be a disputant; and said, further, that he was not certain that an entire stranger in interest might not enter in any case, at any time, as a disputant. Also, the Chief Justice further maintained (in effect) that the business of the Commission, at least in all disputed claims, was to receive, collect, and collate the evidence in each case in preparation for his further examination, consideration, and decision, and that whatever power of final decision (if any) the Commission had was limited to undisputed claims. In brief, that he had the right to reopen and rehear any or every case in his Court, disputed or otherwise, whatever the unanimous opinion and decision of the Commission had been. He further maintained, as to section 11, that as the word "Commission" or "Commissioners" is not there used, except in subsection (b), which he entirely ignored, the Commission have no duties whatever under that section. That in examining or passing upon a claim it was not for the Commission to inquire as to whether or no a claim was invidious or antagonistic to the provisions of subsections (a), (b), (c), and (d) of section 11, and that the Commission, by unanimous voice even, could not "reject" a claim because of its invalidity under the application of said provisions of said sub-sections or for any cause whatever. On the other hand, the Commissioners (all being present) frankly informed the Chief Justice that from the beginning of its work, and then, it had been the opinion of the Commission that, under the provisions of section 6, it had the power and duty of final decision, when of unanimous voice, as to all claims disputed, as well as undisputed, excepting cases arising under sections 8 and 10, where the decision of the Commission, whether unanimous or otherwise, in certain cases is made subject to his confirmation or approval. They pointed out to him that if his position or interpretation was correct, it was entirely superfluous to give him the power to confirm and approve, as in said sections 8 and 10, and further, that in order to maintain his position successfully the words "and such as shall be decided valid by the unanimous voice of the Commission " in paragraph 2 of section 6 must be treated as without significance or meaning, and to do so, as it seemed to them, would be unwarrantable, and an elimination of language that could not be maintained or justified. Various other considerations in support of their interpretation were respectfully called to the attention of the Chief Justice, but without avail, and thus ended the interview. On the 18th instant the Commission received another letter from the Chief Justice, of that date, on the same subject, to which reply was made on the 19th instant, copies of which letter and reply are herewith inclosed, and we respectfully request that the same may be read in connection with this Memorandum. But for the above-mentioned letter of the Chief Justice of the 18th instant, it would not necessarily be correct to attach much importance to the subject of this Memorandum as bearing on the working of the Commission, as it would seem that the possible assumption of power by it, in assuming to make final decisions when unanimous, would not in the least be in the way of the Chief Justice, when the claims with all the evidence come to his hands, as they all must, doing with them in reference to a new trial (if his interpretation be correct) as he should be advised or think best. In other words, our decisions, although treated by us as final, could have no effect upon a claim, if unauthorized, and in violation of the terms of the Treaty; and so we reasoned, and attached no great importance to the interview and the differences there made evident; but in view of the said letter of the Chief Justice of the 18th instant, from the contents of which it may be fairly inferred that he assumes the right to fashion and control the " mode of procedure" of the Commission, it seemed to us to be quite in order to lay the whole matter before our respective Governments; hence this communication. This Memorandum is submitted to our respective Governments 1. Because we recognize and understand that, in the performance of our duties as Commissioners, we are the servants of the Powers whence we received our appointments, and are subject only to these Powers, and from them only should receive instructions or direc tions. |