Manawatu Evening Standard. FRIDAY, APRIL 12, 1929. SAMOAN AFFAIRS.

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLIX, Issue 113, 12 April 1929, Page 6

Manawatu Evening Standard. FRIDAY, APRIL 12, 1929. SAMOAN AFFAIRS.

Samoa and its troubles continue to periodically disturb tlie public mind. That the mandated territory and its administration are a source of perplexity alike to the Administrator and the Government is due to the .persistent attitude of certain interested personages. Hon. 0. F. Nelson, who has failed in his successive endeavours to his charges against the Administration and before the Royal Commission, and who also failed in his appeals to the law courts, including the Privy Council, and whose actions were strongly cohdemned by the Mandates Commission of the League of Nations in its report to the latter body, is apparently one of the prime movers in the formation of the New Zealand Samoan Defence League, whose president, Mr Hall Skelton, of Auckland, has been appealing to the Prime Minister “for a conference in Wellington between Sir Joseph, Tamasese, and his accredited representative, and 'Mr 0.. F., Nelson, who holds power of attorney for' the Samoan chiefs.” That appeal followed a statement made by Sir Joseph Ward in which the Prime Minister said that his “attention had been called to a document circulated by a body calling itself the ‘New Zealand Samoan Defence League’ in which various allegations are made against of.ficials of the Samoan public service,” and in reply to which Sir Joseph “issued for publication the Government’s reply to an enquiry on the subject by Archbishop Averill.” In that reply the Prime Minister very definitely stated that he understood that

the charges to which reference is made relate to a period prior to the enquiry by the Royal Commission in 1927, that they were not brought before that commission, ' although ample opportunity, was afforded for' this purpose, and that they do not refer to any official or other person now continuing in connection with the Administration. In the circum-

stances, it would seem clear that neither the present ‘ officials, nor the present Administration, nor the present Government are in any way responsible for the matters referred to, whether they are based on fact or not.

Sir Joseph added that, in his opinion, “nothing but mischief could come of the publication of these shocking allegations long after the time when action can be taken.” f

AN UNTENABLE-AGITATION

Prior-to the publication of the letter addressed to. : Archbishop Averill, the Prime Minister had indicated, on more than one occasion, the intention of the Government to maintain its authorityin Samoa, and “to make it plain” (as §ir Joseph put it)'“that they cannot tolerate or negotiate with any movement that is openly subversive of good government in the territory. The Samoans,” Sir Joseph said, '“must understand that any failure to obey .the law will be -punished, and that the Government must act rigorously in this direction should future events unhappily render it necessary.” While further intimating that His Excellency the Administrator and the New Zealand Gqvemment were anxious to bring to an end the dissension in the territory, the Prime Minister also said that “immediately those Samoans who are members of the Mau have the good sense to cease their attitude of passive resistance, and to abandon their refusal to,pay £axes, His Excellency and the Government will be prepared to consider any representations in a generous spirit.” It does not appear that the Mau has abandoned its attitude of passive resistance, or is showing any greater respect for the law than iormerly, and it is now ten weeks or so since the Government thus plainly intimated its intention to insist on the Samoans observing the law. In the interval, this self-styled New Zealand Samoan Defence League has been circulating charges against ex-Government officials which, had there been any truth in them, might have been investigated by tiie Royal Commission wiiich sat in Samoa, had Mr Nelson chosen to bring them forward, as he intimated his intention of doing, before leaving New Zealand to give evidence before that tribunal. Eor reasons best known to himself lie failed to do so, and it is scandalous to think those charges should have been again revived, when it is next to impossible to either substantiate or disprove them./ Apart from Mr Nelson, the chief spokesmen for the league seem to be Tamasese, one of the leaders of the illegal Mau, and his legal representative. Tamasese’s appeal against the sentence of six months’ imprisonment in Auckland gaol imposed upon him for his defiance of the law failed, and, from start to finish, Mr Nelson has also failed to justify his opposition to the Administration, which resulted in his deportation from Samoa, the Admnistrator’s order in that direction, although challenged, being successively upheld by the law courts, including the Privy Council, while in its report to the League of Nations tlie Mandates Commission said: “The commission cannot too severely condemn the action of Mr Nelson and those associated with him. . . . They have worked upon the minds of an impressionable people who, prior to their propaganda, showed no disquietening signs of discontent.” Surely it is high time that 'New Zealanders at least disavowed all sympathy with any movement the result of which must be to foster discontent in . the mandated territory. Another development in Samoan affairs is contained in to-day’s cables, a message from Apia stating that police informations ■ have been laid against the Samoan Guardian and its editor arising out of the publication of an alleged seditious libel.