SAMOAN AFFAIRS.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20501, 31 August 1928, Page 11

SAMOAN AFFAIRS.

DEPORTATION OF MR. 0. F. NELSON. APPEAL TO PRIVY COUNCIL. PETITION DISMISSED. (From Otm Own Correspondent ) LONDON, July 24. Mr 0. F. Nelson, who has been ordered to remain absent from Samoa for five years, had a twofold object in coming to Europe. In the first place he wished to bring influence to bear upon the Man* dates Commission at Geneva, and, secondly, he wished to bring his case before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. As is already known, the petition for special leave to appeal against his deportation was dismissed. The Hon. Richard Stafford Cripps, K.C., and Mr Lionel F. Heald were counsel for Mr Nelson when the petition was laid before their Lordships. Among other things, the petition stated that the petitioner was a British subject by naturalisation, and had been since 1923 the senior elected member of the Legislative Council of the territory of Western Samoa, to which office he was re-elected for a further period of three years on November ■ 30, 1926. That oji December 15, 1927, the Administrator of Western Samoa (Major-general Sir George S. Richardson) served a summons, in which it was stated that the _ latter had reason to believe that the petitioner was hindering the due administration end executive Government. It was also stated that Mr Nelson was head of an organisation called Mau, the purpose of which was to secure self-government, and by unlawful means to frustrate and render ineffective the functioning of the administration of the territory. The petition records the course of # events to the final deportation order. There follow the terms of the Samoa Amendment Act, 1937; the terms of Article 22 of the Treaty of Versailles, and the terms of the Order-in-Councii. A full statement is given regarding the development of the Mau. It is said “ that in November, 1926-.. a sub-committee of the Citizens’ Committee was formed consisting entirely of Samoans for the purpose of examining the statements sent in by the Samoans and formulating suggestions as to matters peculiar to the Samoans as distinct from those common to the Europeans and Samoans. " That the said sub-committee, without any instigation or assistance from your petitioner or the other European members of the Citizens’ Committee, rapidly developed and grew in importance amongst the Samoans, and that those interested in its activities came to be known as the ‘ Mau.’ That the word Mau in Samoan means 'opinion,’ and the adoption Of this term by the Samoans signified the holding of an unanimous opinion in favOur of administrative reforms, and that the Mau superseded the sub-committee and developed into a league of Samoans. “ The objects of the Mau were reduced into writing and approved by the Citizens’ Committee on March 19, 1927, and % a document setting these out was sent by your petitioner, as chairman of the Citizens’ Committee, to the Administrator on March 23. 1027.” Then follow the objects of the Mau. Grounds for Setting Aside the Order. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the decision and order of the Administrator ought to be set aside upon the following two grounds: 1. That “ The Samoa Amendment Act, 1927,” which purports to confer upon the Administrator power to deport and exile British subjects is null and void and of no effect as being ultra vires the New Zealand Parliament. 2. That even if The Samoa (Amendment) Act, 1927,” is valid and of full force the decision and order of the Administrator ought to be set aside because there was a grave miscarriage of justice in and about the making of the said Order, and because the conduct of the proceedings and the grounds for the decision of the Administrator were contrary to all established Law and the principles of natural justice. As regards the first reason it was submitted: — , _ (a) That the Parliament of New Zealand has no powers to make any laws for the territory of Samoa save in accordance with the terms of the Ordcr-in-Council which provides that the Parliament of New Zealand can only make laws subject to and in accordance with the Treaty of Peace. (b) That the Treaty of Peace and the mandate thereunder provide that the Parliament of New Zealand shall legislate for the said territory as an integral part of New Zealand and not otherwise. (c> That by reason of “ The New Zealand Constitution'Act, 1852” (15 and 16 Vic. c 72 S 53) and "The Colonial Laws Validitv Act, 1865” (28 and 29 Vic. c 63 S 2), the said Parliament has not and never has had any power to enact any law for New Zealand which is repugnant to the law of England as existing at the date of the said Acts. (d) That it is repugnant to the law of England that any British subject should be deported or exiled from England against his will. _ (e) That the provisions of the Samoa Amendment Act, 1927, are repugnant to the provisions of the Order-in-Council, the Mandate, and the Treaty of Peace, and are contrary to the Law of England as existing in the year 1840 and now, and are therefore ultra vires the New Zealand Parliament. (f) That if the proceedings in this case before the Administrator were authorised by the Samoa Amendment Act, 1927, then the said Act is ultra vires the New Zealand Government, as it provides a form of procedure which is contrary to established law and natural justice and is repugnant to the law of England and the Statute 16 Car. Ic. 10, which is in force in New Zealand. ■ NO EVIDENCE.” As regards the second grounds it was submitted: — (a) That there was no evidence before the Administrator that the petitioner was preventing or hindering the due performance of the Government of the Dominion of New Zealand of its functions and duties or the due administration of the executive Government of the said territory as provided in section 2 of the Samoa Amendment Act, 1927. (b) That the decision of the Administrator was expressly stated by him as set out in par. 4 hereof to be made upon the ground that the petitioner had failed to disprove the charge against him, and that it is contrary to the terms of the said section 2, and to all established law and the principles of natural justice that an accused parson should be assumed guilty unless he can prove his innocence. (c) That the Administrator failed to inform the petitioner either generally or at all of the matters which had induced h is belief, and denied the petitioner any opportunity of hearing the case made against him or cross-examining any witnesses or preparing any denial or explanation thereof contrary to the provisions of the said section 2 and all established law and principles of natural justice. The petition, as it was filed, contained three appendices: _(I) The written state: ment of the petitioner in answer to the summons; (2) a transcript of the hearing before the Administrator; and (3) the Samoa Act, 1921 (sections 4, 73, 81, S 3, 84, 88. 96, 97, 100, 102, 211, and 349). Counsel for the Government of New Zealand were not called upon. The Lord Chancellor said: “You have said all that can be said, Mr Cripps. Their Lordships are unable to grant leave of appeal." Mr Jowitt said he appeared for the New Zealand Government. Under the instructions of the High Commissioner he. had come to oppose the appeal. He did. not know whether it was a case for costs. The Lord Chancellor: I do not think we can depart from the usual practice. Mr Jowitt; As your Lordship pleases.