_Melanesians and Polynesians_, pp. 247, 262 _sq._, 434.

Sec. 5. _Government, Social Ranks, Respect for Chiefs_

The native government of Samoa was not, like that of Tonga, a
centralised despotism. Under the form of a monarchy and aristocracy the
political constitution was fundamentally republican and indeed
democratic. The authority of the king and chiefs was limited and more or
less nominal; practically Samoa consisted of a large number of petty
independent and self-governing communities, which sometimes combined for
defence or common action in a sort of loose federation.[45]

[45] J. Williams, _Narrative of Missionary Enterprises
in the South Sea Islands_, p. 454; H. Hale, _Ethnography and
Philology of the United States Exploring Expedition_, p. 29; T.
H. Hood, _Notes of a Cruise in H.M.S. "Fawn" in the Western
Pacific_ (Edinburgh, 1863), p. 118; G. Turner, _Samoa_, p. 173;
S. Ella, "Samoa," _Report of the Fourth Meeting of the
Australasian Association for the Advancement of Science, held at
Hobart, Tasmania, in January 1892_, p. 631; J. B. Stair, _Old
Samoa_, pp. 83 _sq._, 89; G. Brown, _Melanesians and
Polynesians_, p. 333.

To a superficial observer the aristocratic cast of Samoan society might
at first sight seem very marked. The social ranks were sharply divided
from each other, and the inferior orders paid great formal deference to
their superiors. At the head of all ranked the chiefs (_alii_); but even
among them the ordinary chiefs were distinct from the sacred chiefs
(_alii paia_), who enjoyed the highest honours. These sacred chiefs
preserved their pedigrees for twenty or more generations with as great
care as the oldest and proudest families in Europe, and they possessed
many feudal rights and privileges which were as well known and as fully
acknowledged as are, or were, those of any lord of a manor in England.
The task of preserving a record of a chief's pedigrees was entrusted to
his orator or spokesman, who belonged to a lower social rank (that of
the _tulafales_).[46] The influence of chiefs was supported by the
belief that they possessed some magical or supernatural power, by which
they could enforce their decisions.[47] Their persons were sacred or
taboo. They might not be touched by any one. No one might sit beside
them. In the public assemblies a vacant place was left on each side of
the seat of honour which they occupied. Some chiefs were so holy th