Appeal

O. F. Nelson To

His Treatment in N.Z. Arouses Protest

IT was briefly reported in our March issue that the High Court of Western Samoa on March 1 convicted Mr. O. F.

Nelson of three charges of sedition, and had sentenced him to eight months’ im prisonment and to exile from Samoa for ten years.

Mr. Nelson immediately lodged an ap peal against his conviction and sentence, and demanded that, pending the hearing of this appeal (which is to the Supreme Court in New Zealand) he should be al lowed his liberty on bail.

Mr. Nelson was not released, however.

The appeal apparently was referred to New Zealand, and the judge in Samoa refused to order a stay of execution of sentence. The Prime Minister of N.Z.

was asked to grant certain privileges to Mr. Nelson, but he refused to interfere with the authorities in Samoa.

Mr. Nelson thereupon was placed aboard the Maui Pomare in custody, at Apia, on March 9, and was sent to Wellington. He duly arrived at Lyttelton; and the next development is shown in the following paragraph, which appeared in the “Syd ney Morning Herald’’ on March 20.

“A vehement protest against his con veyance to prison in a ‘Black Maria’ was made by O. F. Nelson on his arrival at Lyttelton from Samoa, where he was re cently sentenced to eight months’ im prisonment on sedition charges. Nelson was being taken to Paparua prison, pend ing the hearing of his appeal. He de manded a taxi, and hailed one, but the police bundled him into the prison van, ignoring his protests.’’

This savage treatment of a man found guilty, not of a criminal offence, but of a serious political misdemeanour, caused a sharp reaction in New Zealand, where opinion, until then, had been generally in favour of the Government. From com ment in New Zealand newspapers and from letters which have been sent to this journal, we gather that many people held that Mr. Nelson was being treated with a degree of brutality which was justified neither by his condition, nor the circum stances of his conviction of sedition. The general argument was that, pending the hearing of his appeal, Mr. Nelson might at least have been spared the humiliation of incarceration in a common criminal prison.

We can add only that the stupid atti tude of the New Zealand Government in this matter is consistent with its unen viable and deplorable record in connec tion with the administration of Western Samoa. These people, it seems, can see no difference between a conviction for petty crime, and the conviction of a man for fighting for what he believes are his national rights. In the Dark Ages the two were on common ground. These are not the Dark Ages. Sedition, rightly, is a punishable offence. But a man who fights for what he believes are his na tional rights—even to the extent of plot ting against constituted authority—and loses, is not bankrupt of personal honour; and certainly is not a man to be thrown among criminals. We are not protesting against the sentence of imprisonment, which, in any event, is the subject of an appeal, and sub judice. But we do pro test most strongly against the practice of treating as a common criminal a man convicted of a political offence.

The Supreme Court of N.Z., on March 27, made an order for the release of Mr.

Nelson on bail, pending his appeal against convictions recorded in Samoa. The court also granted a stay of execution of the sentence of eight months’ imprisonment.

Nelson must comply with certain condi tions laid down by the Court. The hear ing of the appeal was fixed for April 19.