Like wise men, however, they had reserved their weightiest argument to the last. It has already been mentioned that in time of war either party has no scruple in destroying or confiscating the property of a friend, on the plea that it is better for them to have the use of the property than for the enemy to take it. The defendants brought forward an argument based on this custom, saying that they only acted in accordance with national custom, and that they had destroyed the property of the plaintiff, in order to keep it out of the hands of the enemy.
This was by far the most formidable argument they could have employed, but “Monkey Jack” was as clever as his opponents, and replied with crushing effect, that for several weeks the opposite party had been able, if they had desired to do so, to destroy all his property, but had refrained from touching it.
When the chiefs saw that they had met with men more skilful than themselves in argument, they were sadly perplexed, and some of the younger chiefs hit on a mode by which they thought that they might escape from paying the indemnity. They agreed quietly to surround the spot where the captain and the consul were sitting, and suddenly carry them off, and retain them as hostages until the indemnity should be given up. Fortunately, Mr. Pritchard detected their plot, and contrived to slip back to the boats, where he arranged a counter plot.
Before very long, the Samoans surrounded the place where the intended captives were sitting, and, just as they were about to seize them, Mr. Pritchard called out to them, and showed them that they were covered by the levelled muskets of the sailors and marines, who had accompanied the captain and the consul to the spot. Knowing that, unlike themselves, the English warriors had an inconvenient habit of hitting when they fired, the Samoan chiefs acknowledged themselves conquered, and agreed to pay the indemnity.
Another case, much more petty, was a very ludicrous one, the Samoan absolutely granting himself to be defeated by the logic of his opponent.
There was a certain West Indian negro, who had taken up his residence in Samoa, and had attained in a neighboring tribe the rank of chief, together with the name of Paunga. A native chief, named Toe-tangata (called, for brevity’s sake, Toe), had a dog, which was in the habit of stealing from Paunga’s house. The latter had often complained to the owner of the animal, but without success, and at last, as the dog continued to steal, Paunga shot it. Now in Samoa to insult a chief’s dog is to insult the owner, and so Toe considered himself to have been shot by Paunga.
The case was at last referred to the captain of an English man-of-war, but Paunga refused to appear, saying that he was a Samoan chief, and not under the jurisdiction of a foreigner. A file of armed marines was at once sent for Paunga, who ingeniously took advantage of the proceeding, placing himself at their head, and telling the people that they might now see that he was a chief among the white people as well as among natives, and had his guard of honor, without which he would not have stirred out of the house.
Both being before the captain, Toe made his complaint, and was instantly crushed by Paunga’s reply. He admitted that the property of a chief was identical with the owner. Consequently, when Toe’s dog ate Paunga’s food, he, Toe, ate Paunga. Therefore, when Paunga shot Toe in the person of his dog, he only balanced the account, and neither party had grounds of complaint against the other.
SHARK-TOOTH GAUNTLET.
(See [page 1019].)