MAU ACTIVITIES

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22195, 23 February 1934, Page 9

MAU ACTIVITIES

EVIDENCE IN NELSON CASE SUB-INSPECTOR AS WITNESS (United Press Association.) (By Electric Telegraph—Copyright.) APIA, February 20. When the Nelson case was resumed Leleua, under cross-examination, stated that Samoans resented the banishment of Tamasese by General Richardson. The Faipule question had caused dissatisfaction. Prior to the citizens' meetings the latter's policy was peace and presenting grievances constitutionally. Samoans did not know what course to follow. Tamasese was not proclaimed a Mau leader until Nelson was deported. Warships came and Faumuina was banished to Lotofaga. Leleua stated that the Mau desired self-government in 1926, though it had not advocated a European committee. The Mau had wished since to meet the Administrator to discuss its grievances. The judge reminded witness that on many occasions the Administrator was desirous of meeting the Mau, but the latter declined. Witness explained that the Mau was unable to meet the Administrator owing to the defendant's absence. It decided, therefore, 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 tho road —not making trouble? Witness: Those things were due to carelessness on the part of the Mau. The judge: Was not an order issued by the Mau Committee to resist the police attempting to make arrests at Vaimoso ?

Witness: The resistance was to be verbal, and not to use force. The judge commented that witness was misrepresenting the position. Cross-examined further, witness stated that Faumuina was appointed to succeed Tamasese. He was expected to keep the Mau active till redress was obtained. He said that Samoans wanted Nelson to represent them at the f«no with the Administrator because the defendant was a Samoan chief of kingly rank, and had suffered in the Mau cause. He believed that if a fono was held neither witness nor Nelson would have been prosecuted now. Re-examined, witness said the Mau would have remained in existence if Nelson had not returned. Had defendant written advising the Mau to meet the Administrator to discuss grievances he thought the Mau would have refused, because it wished to await Nelson's return. Witness was a former official. He joined the Mau in 1927. His heart was in the Mau before he joined. He admitted that Tamasese was, banished as the result of a family dispute. It was at the request of. the 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 carried. Copies of such instructions found at Tuaefu were produced, and Leleua was warned to tell the truth. Sub-insector Fell stated that he came to Samoa in 1929 and remained till May, ID3O. The territory was unsettled and police activities were seriously hampered. After the Mau had been 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 its condition normal from the police point, of view. Activity was renewed after Nelson's return. The Mali congregated at Vaimoso and held meetings every day. Witness was in charge of the police search of the Mau office at Vaimoso. Later , he was called to Tuaefu, where Inspector Braisby was in charge.. He brought in the chiefs of the Upolu Malaga party the same day. Sub-inspector Fell proceeded to describe the search of houses at Melei, Vaimoso, Faumuina, and Lepea. Witness read several letters addressed to the Mau president and secretary by Nelson. Defendant contested the admissibility of the letters, ultimately accepting the "judge's ruling and admitting authorship of the exhibits.