Mr. O. F. Nelson

Pending Return to Samoa

Letter to the Editor 'VT'OUR editorial comments on my case since the change of Government in New Zealand clearly show prejudice against me.

You stress the fact that my present exile was by a decision of the High Court, and state that “wiping out a sentence imposed after lengthy proceedings by a properly constituted Court, and confirmed on appeal to a higher court, sets an extremely dangerous precedent.” The P.I.M. cannot have studied political situations in other civilised countries if it has not, among its files, records of similar proceedings else where, showing that the release of political prisoners is one of the very first acts of a new Government coming into power. The suggestion sometimes made that British Courts are more just than other Courts cannot weigh much with one who has had my bitter experience.

Only last week I saw a picture in one of the Auckland dailies of political prisoners coming out of gaol by a general amnesty issued by a new Government in troubled Spain. The re-enthroned King of Greece risked the alienation of the good will of his own monarchist supporters responsible for the restoration of the monarchy when he demanded an amnesty

to the Venizelist faction who rebelled against the same restoration. Surely British Justice should permit of these acts of conciliation as much as other systems in countries considered backward when compared with British standards. Where then is the “dangerous precedent?”

The decision of the New Zealand Govern ment that I be allowed to return to my home and my people without degrading conditions is an act of statesmanship which will do more to restore peace, tran quility, and contentment among the Samoans than all the vacillating comments of the P.I.M. on the Samoan situation, where I was once condemned for “pig headedness,” a term applied to the New Zealand Government by the same paper in an issue of a month or two later.

The present New Zealand Government has never agreed with the policies of its predecessors, which brought about and perpetuated unrest in Samoa. In remit ting my exile, Mr. Savage stated that it was in keeping with the policies of his Government and its election pledges. In referring to this as a “dangerous prece dent” and advising me not to resume what I was alleged to have done which the previous Government had arbitrarily pro hibited in Samoa and not in New Zealand, P.I.M. is passing judgment on the new Government of this Dominion as much as on myself.

Now, Mr. Editor, if you are genuinely anxious to be helpful towards an amicable settlement of the longstanding controversv being brought about by this Government,, where all its predecessors failed, how can your uncompromising references tend to* accomplish this? By the changes which are being made in Samoa, I am on the side of the present Government and those who enforced the arbitrary policies of pre vious Governments will show by their actions whether a leopard can remove its spots overnight.

I am, etc,.

O. F. Nelson.

Auckland, N.Z.,

April 30, 1936.

Editorial Note

Mr. Nelson was driven into unlawful acts by the weakness and inefficiency of New Zealand’s Ad ministration in Samoa. He, quite properly, was convicted by a British Court of those unlawful acts. A stronger and more resourceful man than Mr. Nelson, would not have been placed in that position. Still, what he did was done for love of country; and this journal has made no protest against the cancellation of the edict of banish ment. What we did protest against was the absence, in that cancellation, of any attempt at explanation or justification, thus setting up a very dangerous precedent. Mr. Nelson’s arguments about the freeing of political prisoners by new Governments betrays the state of mind that twice led to his banishment. British administrations may be weak and stupid; but British Courts are not corrupt, and their decisions may not lightly be set aside. If Mr. Nelson prefers the political systems of Spain and Greece, he surely is welcome to them.