All Quiet In Samoa.

Mr. Nelson Sees P.M. — Postpones Return.

OUR budget of news relating to political conditions in Western Samoa is, as usual, completely contradictory.

There is evidence that the Mau spirit of nationalism and latent rebellion per sists, and that New Zealand is making little progress in her effort to persuade the mass of Samoans to cooperate with her in governing the country.

There is an equal amount of evidence to indicate that the Samoans are for getting their woes, and slowly developing an inclination to work cordially with the Administrator for the good of Samoa. .

Readers may study the tangled situation for themselves. We summarise here under the information that we have at hand.

Lords are Perturbed, but Will Not

Interfere.

HOLDING the opinion that the Admin istration of Samoa was entirely a matter for New Zealand, the House of Lords, on December 8, considered that a discussion on the subject was un desirable.

The matter was brought up by Lord Ponsonby, who asked the Government to satisfy itself through the Mandates Commission of the League of Nations, that New Zealand’s mandate of Samoa was being administered with due regard to the interests of the Samoans. He said that there was grave apprehension in Samoa that there might be a recurrence of the events of 1929, as there was grave discontent with the Mandatory Government.

Replying, Lord Strathcona pointed out that as the Samoan mandate was en trusted to New Zealand under the Ver sailles Treaty, the Government had neither the right nor the desire to in terfere. For this reason the petition re ceived in December, 1931, was returned with the reply that it was solely a mat ter for New Zealand.

Administrator Claims Marked

Improvement.

Dealing with the question of Native Affairs in his report for the years end ing March 31, the Administrator of the Mandated Territory of Western Samoa, Brig.-General H. E. Hart says: “There has been a marked improve ment in the political situation through out the Territory, and all departments having dealings with the natives are now functioning happily and satisfactorily.

The Land and Titles Commission sat in April and in November, the natives com ing freely to give evidence and have their claims dealt with, and more cases were brought before the Commission during this year than in any of the pre ceding five years.

“The better feeling now prevailing not only applies to official transaction, but extends also to sports and social gather ings.

“A sitting of the Fono of Faipule was held in the month of May. The Faipule were again assembled in December, when the financial position was placed before them and discussed, and arrange ments made for the election of the new Faipule. In this matter previous proce dure was followed, each district was asked to nominate a new Faipule in writing, and in each case the person selected was appointed Faipule. Of the thirty-three Faipule, twenty-one form erly held office, and seventeen were members of the solely nominated Fono as it existed prior to the Ist April, 1929.

Of the twelve new Faipule, some were at one time members of the Mau.

“The Honourables Malietoa and Mata’ afa, the two Fautua, have at all times given great assistance, and, owing to their profound knowledge of Samoan customs and their high standing in the country, their advice has been invalu able and is cordially acknowledged.”

Mr. Nelson Postpones Return Till

February.

From Our Own Correspondent

Apia, Nov. 26.

THE end of Mr. O. F. Nelson’s term of banishment from Samoa is drawing near and the question of his return is much discussed here by Europeans and natives alike. It seems that, al though Mr. Nelson has booked passages for himself and family on the “Mon terey,” due to arrive at Pago Pago from Auckland on December 24, he has made his return depend on a written guaran tee from the Prime Minister of New Zealand conceding him complete free dom of activity in Samoa.

At time of writing a wireless mes sage has been received from Mr. Nel son, stating that he has postponed his return till next February. It is, there fore, believed that the guarantee has not been given and that he prefers to await further developments in New Zealand.

The Mau leaders in Samoa had de cided that a reception to Mr. Nelson should be given only by the women’s Mau and not by the men supporters, in order to avoid any chance of conflict.

The women were to assemble on Mr.

Nelson’s arrival, clad in mourning black to commemorate the victims of the 1929 tragedy. Later on a native feast was to be given, also by the women supporters of the Mau, when the Mau uniforms (blue with white stripes) should be worn.

Probably Another Impasse.

The following, from a private letter to the editor, was not written for publica tion. It definitely throws some light on a puzzling situation, however, so we take the liberty of publishing: “It seems this Mau trouble is destined to continue indefinitely. It is a bit too much to expect the N.Z. Government to agree to a renewal of Nelson’s political agitation among the Samoans. On the other hand, it may be that Nelson, re turning with empty hands after the na tives had made such big pecuniary sac rifices for the Mau, is not very anxious to face the natives.

“The natives have kept very quiet lately, but the return of Nelson would doubtless revive the dying flames of the Mau movement. The Government, faced with financial troubles, certainly has no wish for a recommencement of political strife.

“The situation will very probably re sult in another impasse.”

Prime Minister Meets Mr. Nelson.

We have received a copy of a pamph let containing an account of an inter view between the N.Z. Prime Minister (Mr G. W. Forbes) and Mr. O. F. Nel son, at Wellington, on November 23.

The report was compiled from memory by Mr. Nelson.

It appears that Mr. Nelson formally asked for guarantees that certain laws (which he enumerated at length) would not be put into operation against the

Samoans and himself when he returned.

He indicated several ways in which he could unintentionally break these laws, and render himself liable to punishment.

Mr. Forbes replied that everything would be left to the Administrator, who was on the spot, and a tactful man. He added that anyone entering N.Z. could not be given guarantees concerning pos sible breaches of the law —such a thing would never be asked for.

Mr. Nelson scored by retorting that New Zealand would not tolerate for a moment the Samoan laws to which he had referred.

Mr. Forbes said the laws in force in Samoa had to be obeyed.

Mr. Nelson said those laws would never produce the confidence and re spect of the Samoans for N.Z.

Mr. Forbes said that was a matter of opinion—he relied on the Administra tor’s reports.

Mr. Forbes said that Mr. Nelson had embroiled the Territory long enough and would not be allowed to do so again.

Mr. Nelson protested strongly that he had never been tried for his alleged of fences and had been summarily de ported, without trial.

Mr. Forbes said that he believed in deportation without trial. Neither he nor General Hart, however, were re sponsible for what happened before their time.

Mr. Nelson said that they had per petuated the system, therefore, they must believe in it.

Mr. Forbes said he was satisfied that the actions of his predecessors had been just and proper.

Mr. Nelson declared that the acts of former Samoan officials had been pro vocative and aggressive and serious trouble had been avoided only by his efforts to keep the peace.

Mr. Forbes; That is a matter of opinion.

This cross-firing apparently went on for some time, and then the useless in terview ended.

EDITORIAL NOTE: The report (which, as explained, is from one side only) indicates that in this interview there appeared the two elements which have been the curse of Samoa for many years. There was a stubborn, pig-headed insistence on the part of the Prime Minister that N.Z. could not possibly have been wrong in her Samoan policy, and that she will in no circumstances compromise with the Mau leaders who dared to question the wisdom and justice of her Administration. There was a plaintive argument on the part of the Mau leader that New Zealand had not allowed them to approach her in a spirit of friendship; there was hot headed, angry resentment of the New Zea lander’s assumption of unquestionable right and power; and there was no regret expressed for the atmosphere of intrigue and disloyalty which surrounded the birth of the Mau.

I cannot understand the attitude of New Zealand, as disclosed in this interview. Why, when they could so easily enlist the co-opera tion and goodwill of these Mau leaders, do they continue their policy of exacerbation. Surely, their silly pride is not keeping them upon so foolish a course? Anyhow, politicians have no pride!

Does the N.Z. Government realise that it has created this position: If there is to be peace in Samoa it can be secured only by Mr. Nelson and other Mau leaders humbling themselves before N.Z. officialdom? What, otherwise, does it expect the Mau leaders to do?