SAMOAN AFFAIRS

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XXIV, Issue 61, 22 February 1934, Page 8

SAMOAN AFFAIRS

NELSON SEDITION CASE

Resumption of Hearing

EVIDENCE BY MAU ORATOR

(By Telegraph—Press Assn.—Copyright) (Received 22, 10.45 a.in.) APIA, Feb. 21.

When the Nelson case was resumed Leleua Siavo, a Mau orator, under cross-examination, stated that Samoans resented the banishment of Tamasese by Sir George Richardson. The faipule question had caused dissatisfaction prior to the citizens’ meetings. The latter’s policy was peace and presenting grievances constitutionally. Samoana did not know what course to follow. Tamasese was not proclaimed Man leader until Mr Nelson was deported and the warships came and Faumuina was banished to Lotolaga. Leleua stated that the Mau deaired self-government in 1926 though they had not advocated a European committee. The Mau wished since to meet the Administrator and discuss grievances

Ihe judge reminded witness that on many occasions the Administrator was desirous of meeting (fie Mau but the latter declined. Witness explained that the Mau were unable to meet the Administrator owing to the defendant’s absence and decided theiefore to endure hardship without making trouble. The judge: Do you consider the behaviour of the Mau at Vaimoso in 1929 —pickets obstructing traffic, throwing stones and blocking the load—not making trouble? Witness: Those things were due to carelessness on the part of tho Mau. The judge: Was not an order issued by the Mau committee to resist lhe police attempting to arrest Vaimoso? Witness: The resistance was to be verbal. Force was not to be used. Ihe judge commented that witness was misrepresenting the positisn. Cross-examined further, witness stated that Faumuina wag appointed to succeed Tamasese. He was exported to keep the Mau active till redress was obtained. He said that the Sauiojrs wanted Nelson to represent them at a iouo with the Administrator beciu.se the defendant was a taamoau chief of kingly rank who had suffered m tho Mau cause. He believed that it the fono had been held neither witness nor Nelson would have been prosecuted. Re-examined, he said tmit the Mau would have remained in exists ice if Nelson had not returned. Hud thv defendant written advising the Mau to meet tho Administrator themselzeg to discuss grievances he thougnt that the Mau would have refused, because they wished to wait Nelson's return. Witness, a former official, joined the Mau in 1927. His heart wag in the Mau before he joined. He admitted that Tamasese was banished as a result of a family dispute at the request of his relatives, not on General Richardson’s initiative alone. Leleua, questioned, assured the judge that there was no ulterior motive in the recent malagas. He saw no written instructions curried. Copies of such instructions found on Tuaefu were produced and Lelew was warned to tell the truth. Sub-Inspector Fell stated that ho came to Samoa in 1929 and remained till May, 1930 . The territory waa unsettled and police activities were seriously hampered. After the Mau was declared seditious many natives were prosecuted. By May, 1930, matters had improved sufficiently for the police to operate without serious opposition. Witness returned to Samoa in 1932. The Mau was quiet and conditions normal from the police point of view. Mau activity was renewed after Nelson’s return. The Mau congregated at Vaimoeo, holding daily meetings and two taalolos. Witness was in charge of the police party that searched tho Mau office and Vaimoso and later called at Tuaefu, whore Inspector Braisby, who wag in charge, brought in the chiefs of the Upolu malaga party lhe same day. He proceeded to describe the search of houses at Melci, Vaimoso, Faumuina and Lcpea. Witness read several letters addressed to the Mau president and secretary, Mr Nelson.

The defendant contested their admissibility. ultimately accepting the judge’s ruling and admitting authorship of the exhibits.