Mr. Gurrs Reply.

To this request by General Richardson, Mr. Gurr replied with the following statement in writing:—

In the matter of the Samoa Amendment Act, 1927.

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 Edwin William Gurr on the 15th day of December 1927 at 10.20 a.m. requiring me to appear before you at 10.30 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 not a report and cannot be relied on 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 distinctly states however (in whose wording I am unable to say) that I am "acquitted of wilful misstatement." If there were any "misleading state-men in the Committee's statement to the Hon. the Minister, I respectfully desire to point out that no correction of those statements was vouchsafed to the Committee, until it received a reply from the Hon. the Minister in August last, notwithstanding that the Committee's Statement had been before Your Excellency and the Hon. the Minister since December last.
4.	The summary makes no reference to the applying of the above intituled Act to Europeans. This matter was omitted from the Order of Reference.
5.	I am not a member of the "Mau" as it is now operating. I was a member 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 "Man" 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 Citizens' 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.	I have not "sought to discredit the Executive Government of Samoa and to arouse dissatisfaction with and disobedience to the laws and the Administrative officer page 38 of the Government and to belittle them." Nothing of a political nature that has appeared in the "Samoa Guardian" has gone beyond the bounds of truth or fair political criticism. Your Excellency has on more than one occasion stated that you did not object to these.
11.	I am unaware of any "false and misleading" statements and suggestions" having been made by me, and they are not specifically stated in your requisition.
12.	I have never placed before the Samoans any "sensational falsehood." If anything I have said at any time has been incorrect (and no person is always correct), it will be remembered that I am positively "acquitted of wilful misstatement.'*
13.	I am unaware of any grounds upon which Your Excellency can rightly characterise my loyal motives and solicitude for the Samoan people as a "pretence.' Your Excellency's requisition gives no specific instances.
14.	I am unaware of anything, beyond fact and fair criticism, contained in the supplement to the "Samoa Guardian" which could reasonably be calculated to bring the Government and its Officials into "the hatred and contempt of its Samoan subjects." No detailed charges are laid against me, and no specific instances are given.
15.	While 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 provides that the Administrator "shall grant him (the person requisitioned) full opportunity of denial or explanation."
16.	I submit that there can be no possibility of a "full opportunity of denial or explanation" unless the hearing of the "matter's" 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.
17.	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 1 have referred to would have governed the enquiry. No such prosecution has ever been brought.
18.	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 New Zealand Counsel, namely, Sir John Findley, K.C., K.C.M.G."

Dated this Kith day of December, 1927.

(Signed) E. W. Gurr.