Distracted

Samoa

Hon. O. F. Nelson’S Reply

(We have received the following letter from the Hon. O. F. Nelson, written in Auckland, N.Z., on 28th May, 1931. Reference is made else where in this issue to the extraordin ary fine of £5,600 recently imposed on Mr. Nelson’s firm, in Samoa, by a New Zealand judge.) UNDER the caption of “Distracted Samoa,” in your issue of May 14, Mr. R. W. Robson, writing edit orially on the subject of a fine of £5,600 recently inflicted by the High Court, at Apia, on O. F. Nelson and Co. Ltd. —a company incorporated under the laws of Western Samoa —stated: “I have no personal knowledge of the con dition of affairs in Samoa.

"At the first opportunity, someone from this journal, as part of our policy of giving service to the Pacific communities, will visit Samoa and try and sum up the situation there truthfully and fairly. . . .

“Therefore, this fine that has been im posed on O. F. Nelson, with its suggestion of sheer savagery, gives a most unfortunate impression. No doubt, O. F. Nelson is a very stubborn, pertinacious, difficult man. . . . . Probably he has been hopelessly embittered by his deportation—which surely was the stupidest thing ever carried out by a bull-necked, swashbuckling, fatheaded administration—and will not permit the dead past to bury its dead.

“Between the brutality of the Adminis tration and the pigheaded obstructiveness of O. F. Nelson and the Mau, there is no sign of compromise. Yet only by con ciliation and compromise can this most unhappy state of affairs be ended. . .

As you admit having “no personal knowledge of the condition of all airs in Samoa,” it seems to me more in keeping with your professed “policy of giving service to the Pacific commun ities had you—as you state in another part of the editorial —"left the whole subject severely alone,” until after a representative of your journal had vis ited the troubled territory and tried to “sum up the situation there truthfully and fairly.”

You state that I have perhaps be come “hopelessly embittered by my deportation and will not permit the dead past to bury its dead”; but as I am still in enforced exile from my native country, I fail to understand how you can refer to this as the “dead past” when it is “the living present.”

You cannot possibly suggest that I should add “premature burial” of what is very much alive to the long list of allegations against me.

You contend that my “pig-headed obstructiveness” is partly responsible for there being “no sign of compro mise,” but do not give one instance of that “pig-headed obstructiveness.”

You have once before commented very derogatively on an article written by me, stating specifically the grievances of the Samoans and what they re quired the Government to give impar tial consideration to. You must, there fore, be aware that I have, within the last seven months, addressed the Mandatory Government, in Welling ton, on five or six occasions, pointing out clearly what I knew to be the views of the Samoans on former and recent developments, and making definite constructive suggestions to wards a reapproachment. On each of these occasions I have respectfully requested the Government for a reply on the matters at issue, but a formal acknowledgment was all I have re ceived, thus proving the unwillingness of the Government to discuss these matters with me.

The unrest in Samoa has developed into a long-drawn struggle, involving many unfortunate and unhappy trag edies; so the demands of the Samoans must naturally include some which might appear to be unreasonable; but what possible compromise can be ob tained when one side refuses to join issue? It is true that, whereas General Richardson at first refused to recog nise the Mau, Colonel Allen invited the discontented Samoan majority to a conference, which they refused to attend unless equal conditions were allowed. But in this respect I refer only to my own position with the Gov ernment, and as you have taken leave to refer to me indiscriminately, I feel confident that your own sense of fair ness will cause you to allow me to reply to some of your charges, through your columns. The Mandatory Government can well attend to vour references to them—if they can find a defence.

In conclusion, I beg leave to state that your attempt to be fair, by crit icising adversely what you consider the mistakes of both sides, might be very interesting to your readers, but you would certainly be “giving service to the Pacific communities” if you would, when discussing the situation in Western Samoa, offer some defin itely constructive suggestions of how that “conciliation and compromise” to which you refer can be brought about so that “this most unhappy state of affairs be ended.”