SAMOAN TRIAL

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XXIV, Issue 62, 23 February 1934, Page 7

SAMOAN TRIAL

NELSON AND THE MAU Further Police Evidence INTENSE INTEREST By Telegraph—Press Assn.—Copyright APIA, February 21. Sub-Inspector Fell, continuing his evidence at the Nelson trial, said there had been no visible signs of the Mau since his return to Samoa in 1932. The official Mau uniform was absent. He was unable to say that no resistance had been shown since the return of the defendant. The latter’s general reputation in Samoa and abroad was as leader of the Mau.

Witness was a member .of the New Zealand Police Force seconded for duty in Samoa. He had experience in the prosecution of seditious offences in the Dominion and in the methods and aims of Communists there. The Mau in Samoa was similar, both professing a desire to overthrow the Government

constitutionally and keep tho pence, but ignoring the law. The result was clashes whenever the police enforced it. He had heard Communist speakers claim brotherhood with the Mau. POSSIBILITY OF TROUBLE. Obviously, if there had been no police action recently and the Mau had been allowed to continue flouting the law there was a possibility of similar trouble tu that of 1929 12 or 18 months hence. Ho recognised that the leader of a movement of a seditious nature was morally responsible for consequent developments, even if they were unforeseen. Experience proved that matters frequently passed beyond the control of the leaders, inevitably resulting in trouble. Mau activity had declined in the middle of 1930 to normal but increased following the return of Nelson. The indications wore that unless it was checked it was liable to result in a condition in which peace was possible only if the police and the authorities were indifferent to the breaking of the law. If tho Samoans were given self-govern-ment it would result in reversion to the practices of former native Parliaments, leading to strife, dissention, village quarrels and knifings. The present instances proved the inability of the Samoans to conduct their affairs peacefully. Knifings were more common, on tho basis of percentages of population, in Samoa than in New Zealand. The Samoans were not ready to control their affairs by popular vote. NEW ZEALAND RIOTS. Questioned regarding the riots in Wellington and Auckland in 1932, witness said he was present in Wellington at the time. The police fired no shots. An adequate force existed to control the situation. Defendant argued that the Samoans were Communists.

The Judge observed that the Russian and Samoan systems were as different as chalk and cheese. There was no comparison between New Zealand and Samoa, as the people of the Dominion were less inclined in favour of unlawful practices prevented by special regulations here.

Sub-Inspector Fell said he did not believe that the Mau genuinely was anxious to meet the Administrator recently. The reason given for the failure of the conference was insufficient and insignificant. Bueh a fono, if it were ever held and its settlement followed, would be the best solution.

MAU MEMBER’S EVIDENCE,

Tuala Tulo, a Mau member arrested at the Savaii malaga, denied any political aims iu the malagas, whereupon Mr McCarthy produced documents signed by witness and other members of the Mau committee which, he alleged, proved the contrary.

The defence objected to the admission of these documents, and the matter was deferred. The police will call a witness to prove that the documents were found on a member of the Savaii malaga. Witness admitted that the document seized was read to him at the Mau office by the secretary, Matau, prior to his departure for the malaga. An accountant of the Gold Star Transport Company produced books showing Mau accounts for taxi hire in August, October and November. This data disclosed an increasing number of visit's by the Mau to the defendant’s residence; journeys between Apla and Vaimoso, Lelea and Tuaefu; and much standing time at Tuaefu. These accounts and those for buses used to

convey the malaga parly to Luatuanuu wore paid from the Mau’s funds. Tho defence protested that this was unexpected evidence and was not listed.

Intense interest was displayed by Mau spectators at these detailed disclosures.