Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

The TRUTH about SAMOA

The notice ran as follows:—

The notice ran as follows:—

In the matter of the Samoa Amendment Act, 1927

To Olaf Frederick Nelson, of Apia, Merchant.

Whereas I have reason to believe that you are hindering the due administration and executive government of the Territory of Western Samoa Now Therefore I, George Spafford Richardson, Administrator of the said Territory, hereby require you to appear before me on the 16th day of December 1927 at 9.30 a.m. o'clock in the forenoon at the Office of the Administrator at Apia to show cause why the provisions of the above entitled Act should not be made applicable in your case. For your information I hand you herewith a copy of the above entitled Act. I have to inform you that I am prepared to permit you, on your appearance, to have the assistance of counsel or other person to assist you in showing cause accordingly. You may also tender any written statement or other document, or produce any person or witnesses. For your further information I have to inform you that the matters by reason of which I believe you to be hindering administration as aforesaid are:—

You are the "recognised and active head of an organisation called the "Mau" or League of Samoa, the purpose of which is to secure self-government for Samoa and in furtherance of such purpose, by unlawful means to frustrate and render ineffective, and which is frustrating and rendering ineffective, the functioning of the Administration of the Territory.

Dated the 14th day of December, 1927.

(Signed) Geo. S. Richardson,

Administrator of Western Samoa.
Before appearing next day in reply to this requisition, I addressed the following written statement to the Administrator:—

To His Excellency, The Administrator of Western Samoa,

Apia.

In Pursuance of the suggestion and permission made and given by Your Excellency in your notice under the above intituled Act dated the 14th day of December 1927 and served upon me Olaf Frederick Nelson on the 15th day of December 1927 at 10.30 a.m. requiring me to appear before you at 9.30 a.m. on the 16th day of December 1927, to show cause why the provisions of the above intituled Act should not be made applicable in my case, I respectfully tender the following written statement:—
1.The report of the Royal Commission has not yet been made public in Samoa.
2.The summary which has been made public is net a report and cannot be relied mi to express fully the findings of the Royal Commission. In any case, that summary is not, except as to extracts, in the words of the Royal Commissioners. There are expressions in the summary that strongly support this view.
3.The summary makes it clear, however, that in the words of the Royal Commissioners "little reliance" could be placed on the evidence of the Natives to the effect that I have told them not to obey the laws and regulations of the Government. If further makes plain that there is no evidence that I was concerned in any propaganda of this kind which might have emanated from the Committee of the Mau at Apia.
4.I cannot accept responsibility for statements by Natives to the effect that they recognise me as head of the Mau, nor does Your Excellency's requisition give any facts in support of such a view.
5.I am not a member of the "Mau" as it is now operating. I was elected Chairman of the original Citizens' Committee, whose object was merely to place grievances before the Hon. the Minister for External Affairs. Those objects are clearly set forth in the typed statements forwarded to Your Excellency for transmission to the Hon. the Minister in December last. Beyond that object and those grievances, I and the said Committee never have gone.
6.The Citizens' Committee was only part of the "Mau" and ceased definitely to take any part in "Mau" deliberations or to have anything actively to do with the "Mau" page 30 subsequent to the directions of the Hon. the Minister during his visit in June last.
7.There was no disposition on the part of the Natives to disobey the laws of the land during the period prior to June when the Citizen's Committee was in active control of the two-fold organisation.
8.I have no knowledge to the effect that it is the purpose of the "Mau" to secure self-government. No such idea was ever mooted or even hinted at during the period in which I was active on the Citizens' Committee.
9.I have not been at any time a party to, nor have I ever countenanced any "means" lawful or unlawful "to frustrate and render ineffective the functioning of the Administration."
10.Whilst it is true that the above intituled Act states that "the Administrator shall inform him (the person requisitioned) generally of the matters which have induced such belief as aforesaid," yet it is equally true that the same clause provided that the Administrator "shall grant him (the person requisitioned) full opportunity of denial or explanation."
11.
I submit that there can be no possibility of a "full opportunity of denial or explanation" unless the hearing of the "matters" is based upon the following essentials:
(a)Definite written charges to be made and delivered to the person required to appear.
(b)Time in which to prepare a defence and collect evidence in refutation of those charges.
(c)All evidence to be on oath.
(d)The right of cross-examination.

Your Excellency's requisition does not make provision for any of these essentials, and in their absence I am practically helpless except so far as I may make general denials to "general charges." Moreover, I am called upon to prove negatives. It is the universally accepted rule in both logic and law that he who affirms must prove, and that no man can or should be called upon to prove a negative.

12.It is to be noted that if I were guilty of the charges either generally stated or implied in Your Excellency's requisition, I could undoubtedly have been prosecuted under the usual Statute Law in the King's Court for seditious conduct, or taking part in an unlawful assembly. In that case the essentials I have referred to would govern the enquiry. No such prosecution has ever been brought.
13.When Your Excellency wrote to me on the eve of my departure for New Zealand, I replied asking Your Excellency, in effect, to tell me of any charges Your Excellency had to make against me. Your Excellency's reply disclosed no definite charge. It merely blamed me for acting as chairman on a certain committee. I desire to point out that that Commiteee was a thoroughly constitutional and legal body and that no facts were alleged to show how the peace, order and good government were endangered by that Committee.
14.Since then and up to a week after the commencement of the sittings of the Royal Commission, I was absent from Samoa.
15.Any apparent activities on my part in connection with the Citizens' Committee since the visit of the Hon. the Minister in June last, have been solely for the purpose of bringing matters before the Royal Commission, as was evidently expected both by the Royal Commission and the New Zealand Cabinet, and was certainly approved of by my New Zealand counsel, namely, Sir John Findlay, K.C., K.C.M.G.

Dated this 16th day of December, 1927.

(Signed) O. F. Nelson.

Following this letter, I appeared before General Richardson, accompanied by Messrs. Baxter and Slipper as legal advisors. The following is a verbatim report of the proceedings:—

Mr. Baxter: "Mr. Nelson appears before your Excellency this morning in accordance with the notice issued by you under the provisions of the Samoa Amendment Act, 1927. I am appearing to assist him, together with my friend Mr. Slipper. I do not propose to speak at any length. Mr. Nelson's evidence will consist of the statement already placed before you by me. I wish to bring under your notice a letter which was sent to the Samoan Committee before the receipt of your communication. It v. sent on the 13th December. It is as follows:—

page 31
"To the Leaders of the 'Mau.'

"On the termination of the enquiry of the Royal Commission, it was decided that, when the decision of the Commission came to hand, we were again to meet you to discuss the matter. The decision has now arrived, and is published in the ' Samoa Guardian/ so it was our intention to meet you this week. On referring the matter to counsel they have advised us that no useful purpose can be served by our meeting you. Such a meeting would be undoubtedly misconstrued and made to appear as if we had broken the orders of the Minister prohibiting Europeans from participating in Native affairs. The decision, as published, shows that in the minds of the Commission the Administrator and Administration are right and the Mau are wrong in all the matters under dispute. Most of the blame has been placed on us, the European section of the Citizens' Committee, more especially on the Chairman. The decision only discloses the findings of the Commission, but no recommendation of what should be done is contained therein. Furthermore, this decision, or even a small portion of it, cannot be made effective until after it had been considered by the Parliament or Government of New Zealand and they had given their decision on it.

"Yours respectfully, Citizens' Committee (European Section).

"(Signed) O. F. Nelson, Chairman."

"Commenting on the notice itself, I just wish to mention that we are put in the unfortunate position of being asked to prove a negative, which is practically impossible. We can only say "No" to what is alleged, and such a course is unknown both in logic and law, where it is accepted he who affirms must prove, and that no man should be called upon to prove a negative. Nevertheless, we are bound by the requirements of your letter. The evidence in chief is before you, and Mr. Nelson is attending for the purpose of answering any questions which may be asked. I suggest that Mr. Slipper and myself may be entitled to ask one or two questions if it is necessary to clear up any point.