now, on the
third day of martial law, the paper was suppressed. Here we have another
of these international obscurities. To Fritze the step seemed natural
and obvious; for Anglo-Saxons it was a hand laid upon the altar; and the
month was scarce out before the voice of Senator Frye announced to his
colleagues that free speech had been suppressed in Samoa.

Perhaps we must seek some similar explanation for Fritze's short-lived
code, published and withdrawn the next day, the 23rd. Fritze himself was
in no humour for extremities. He was much in the position of a
lieutenant who should perceive his captain urging the ship upon the
rocks. It is plain he had lost all confidence in his commanding officer
"upon the legal side"; and we find him writing home with anxious
candour. He had understood that martial law implied military possession;
he was in military possession of nothing but his ship, and shrewdly
suspected that his martial jurisdiction should be confined within the
same limits. "As a matter of fact," he writes, "we do not occupy the
territory, and cannot give foreigners the necessary protection, because
Mataafa and his people can at any moment forcibly interrupt me in my
jurisdiction." Yet in the eyes of Anglo-Saxons the severity of his code
appeared burlesque. I give but three of its provisions. The crime of
inciting German troops "by any means, as, for instance, informing them
of proclamations by the enemy," was punishable with death; that of
"publishing or secretly distributing anything, whether printed or
written, bearing on the war," with prison or deportation; and that of
calling or attending a public meeting, unless permitted, with the same.
Such were the tender mercies of Knappe, lurking in the western end of
the German quarter, where Mataafa could "at any moment" interrupt his
jurisdiction.

On the 22nd (day of the suppression of the _Times_) de Coetlogon wrote
to inquire if hostilities were intended against Great Britain, which
Knappe on the same day denied. On the 23rd de Coetlogon sent a complaint
of hostile acts, such as the armed and forcible entry of the _Richmond_
before the declaration and arrest of Gallien. In his reply, dated the
24th, Knappe took occasion to repeat, although now with more
self-command, his former threat against de Coetlogon. "I am still of the
opinion," he writes, "that even foreign consuls are liable to the
application of martial law, if they are guilty of offences against the
be