These punishments were usually inflicted, but there was a severe set of penalties for graver offences. In some cases the offender was hung by the feet to the branch of a tree, or stripped of all his clothes, and set in the burning rays of the mid-day sun. One of the severest, as well as most degrading punishments consisted in taking a pole cut from a very prickly tree, tying together the culprit’s feet and hands, slinging him on the pole as pigs are slung when they are being taken to the oven, and carrying him to the house or village against which he had offended.
The degrading part of this punishment consisted in likening the offender to a pig going to the oven. It is always held as a deep insult to a Samoan to compare him to a pig; while the very idea of being baked in the oven is most repulsive to the feelings of the people, who have the same contempt for any of the processes of cookery that prevails throughout New Zealand, Fiji, and Tonga. So utterly humiliating is this punishment, that when the culprit is laid helpless at the feet of those whom he has injured he is almost invariably released and forgiven, the extreme degradation being accepted as an atonement for almost any offence, no matter how heinous. This is the reason why the ceremony of Ifonga is considered as so degrading.
Indeed, it is in consequence of this feeling that cannibalism is occasionally practised, though, as has already been mentioned, it exists in a very modified form. Formerly, the women always attended upon the warriors for the sake of obtaining the bodies of the slain foes, which they dragged out of the field, and then cooked, by way of expressing the utmost contempt for them. The priests used also to accompany the warriors, and pray to the gods for success. They had good reason for wishing for victory, as their portion of the food was only the hands of the slain warriors, and as long as the struggle lasted they were not allowed to eat any other food except these hands. The priests of the losing side have sometimes been obliged to fast for several days in succession.
When the body of a chief was carried off to the oven, great rejoicings were made, and every one was expected to eat a piece of it, no matter how small. On such occasions, even the women and little children had a share, the question being frequently asked whether all have tasted. Sometimes, when a captive has been taken alive, the Samoans have been known to tie him up to a tree, dig a hole in front of him, line it with stones, heat it before his eyes, and then throw him into it.
According to the accounts of the natives, wars were formerly much more common than is now the case, the musket having almost driven the club and spear out of the field, and rendering useless the strength and skill of the warriors, who prided themselves on their dexterity of handling their weapons. How well they fence with the club has already been described, and that they were equally efficient in the use of the spear is evident from an anecdote told by Mr. Williams.
A chief named Matetau had come on board an English vessel, and the captain, wishing to test the skill of his visitor, painted on the foresail a ring about four or five inches in diameter, and asked Matetau to throw his spear at it. The chief retired to the quarter-deck, about eighty feet from the mark, poised his spear for a moment, and sent it through the middle of the ring. Warriors thus skilful in the use of their weapons might well feel indignant at the introduction of fire-arms, which equalize the weak and the strong, and enable a mere boy only just tattooed to kill the greatest chief.
When cases are brought before the council for adjudication, both plaintiff and defendant exhibit the greatest ingenuity in stating their case, and are wonderfully fertile in inventing new arguments. The Samoan litigant is as slippery as an eel, and no sooner has he found one post untenable than he has contrived to glide away from it and establish himself in another. Mr. Pritchard gives a very amusing instance of this characteristic of the Samoan.
The property of an English resident, who was popularly called “Monkey Jack,” had been wantonly destroyed, and the injured man referred the case to the council. As at that time two ships of war arrived, the matter was by common consent referred to the senior officer, and the plaintiff, accompanied by his friends, proceeded to the spot. The chiefs were convened, and, though they could not deny that the property had been destroyed, they put forward a series of excuses for refusing to pay any indemnity.
Firstly, they said that the plaintiff had joined the enemy, and that they were therefore entitled to wage war on him. This accusation being refuted, they shifted their ground from the man to his wife, saying that she was related to the enemy, and that her husband necessarily partook of the relationship. Fortunately, the woman happened to be related equally to both sides, so that the defendants had to abandon that plea.
Their next count was, that the destruction of the property was accidental, and that therefore the owner had no claim on them. As their own previous admissions contradicted them, there was no difficulty in disposing of this allegation. Their next line of defence was a very ludicrous one, and showed that they were nearly brought to bay. It so happened that “Monkey Jack” was something of an armorer, and used to repair for the natives the muskets which their rough hands had damaged. His opponents suddenly recollected this and turned it to account, saying that his charges for repairs were so much heavier to them than to the enemy, that in self-defence they had taken his property in compensation. Evidence was brought that his charges were always the same to any natives, no matter to which party they belonged, and so the defendants were again beaten.