Mr. Greene

Mr. Nelson And

Sidelight on Man Leader’s Character

DETAILS of the newspaper squabble between Mr. O. F. Nelson, of Western Samoa, and Mr. Marc T. Greene, the American journalist, who recently visited that Territory, do not throw a very flat tering light upon the character of Mr.

Nelson and his advisers. The practice of replying to criticism by screaming abuse at one’s critics may be very satisfactory to the screamer —in the heat of the moment, at any rate—but it certainly does not help to advance one’s cause in any where reasoned argument will ultimately decide the issue.

Mr. Greene went to Samoa and appears to have investigated the paramount poli tical question there with thoroughness and without prejudice. His sympathies, both before his visit and afterwards, were clearly with the nationalistic ambitions of the Samoans. He felt, as all friends of Samoa must feel, that the Samoans were entitled, not only to justice, but to some thing more than justice, on account of the cruel maladministration which Samoa suffered between 1922 and 1930 at the hands of certain swashbuckling gentle men from New Zealand.

Mr. Greene, a trained observer of events in many countries, came to the correct conclusion that the New Zealand Govern ment now realises its errors and is ready to make substantial concessions to the Mau, with a view to securing a permanent settlement of the native troubles. He found, however, that one of the main obstacles in the way of a satisfactory settlement is the character of Mr. Nelson.

He said in newspaper articles that Mr.

Nelson, owing to his temperament and his bitter prejudices, would not be a suitable representative of the Mau in the pending negotiations with the New Zealand Administrator; and he therefore supported the Administrator in his refusal to negotiate with the Mau so long as the Mau insisted on Mr. Nelson being one of its delegates.

Mr. Greene in an article on this subject in a San Francisco newspaper was quite outspoken about Mr. Nelson. The picture he drew of Mr. Nelson was not exactly flattering; but neither was it unduly offensive. Possibly Mr. Greene was in error, when describing the personality and history of Mr. Nelson, in not giving emphasis to the fact that Mr. Nelson is an ardently patriotic Samoan, and that he has undertaken and suffered tremen dous sacrifices, in both his personal liberty and his private fortune, in advo cating the cause of the Mau.

In due course the “San Francisco Chronicle” of September 17, 1933, came to the hands of Mr. Nelson; and the lat ter, both by direct post and through the “Samoan Herald,” directed a perfect tirade of abuse at Mr. Greene, who was still in Samoa. Mr. Nelson charged Mr, Greene with all sorts of things; but the only matter worthy of notice is his state ment that Mr. Greene called on Mr.

Nelson in Auckland and tried to borrow from him a sum of 200 dollars. The in ference, of course, was that, as Mr.

Greene failed to obtain this sum from Mr. Nelson, he deliberately used his posi tion as a journalist to vilify Mr. Nelson.

But in Mr. Nelson’s own newspaper, “The New Zealand Samoan Guardian,” of

November 17, there is a statement which puts an entirely different complexion upon the matter. It is stated there that Mr. Greene went to the office of Mr.

Nelson in Auckland, explained that owing to exchange difficulties he (Mr.

Greene) had not received money due to him from certain investments that he has in public utilities in America, and asked Mr. Nelson to lend him 200 dollars on the basis of such securities. That, on the face of it, was not at all an improper proposal; but the subsequent insinuation that Mr. Greene was simply trying to extract a little easy money from a sup posedly rich man eager to obtain pub licity, is most unworthy and improper.

Other information to our hand shows that this incident of the 200 dollars occurred two years ago, and not recently: and that Mr. Greene did not ask for a loan, in the manner suggested, but instead asked Mr. Nelson if he could, recommend a broker, who would handle the small matter for him. Mr. Nelson has magnified a trivial incident into something of major importance.

In a general way, it may be said that Mr. Nelson’s attacks on Mr. Greene have been hysterical, savage, and unbalanced; and (what is more important) they sup port to a remarkable degree the very reasons which have been advanced by Mr. Greene and others to show that Mr.

Nelson would not be a fit person to repre sent the Samoan Mau in the proposed conference with the Administrator. In fact, the man who would write such let ters as Mr. Nelson has written to Mr.

Greene, and about Mr. Greene, is the very last man who should be admitted to such a conference.

Mr. Greene at present is in New Zealand and we understand that he may shortly visit Sydney. It must be admit ted that he is a challenging and provoca tive writer —just the type who would be likely to arouse the ire of a temperamen tal man like Mr. Nelson—but on the whole he appears to have summed up the Samoan situation fairly and justly.

During July, August, and September of 1933, 9,647cwt. of pearlshell, valued at £63,241, were exported from Australia, as compared with 4,915cwt., with a value of £33,575 for the corresponding period last year.