BAY OF ISLANDS ROLL STUFFING CASE.

Akaroa Mail and Banks Peninsula Advertiser, Volume 3, Issue 311, 11 July 1879, Page 2

BAY OF ISLANDS ROLL STUFFING CASE.

(communicated

The Bay of Islands roll stuffing case has, for the peace of the Ministry, becomo only too notorious. The facts, as elucidated by the late Royal Commission, present throughout, but one feature, namely, that ail. the evidence goes to prove only too clearly that the'whole drama reflects disgrace on some person or persons concerned. The question of course follows, who are the culprits. In order to arrive at this point, it will: be-,, necessary to enquire briefly into the political history of the Bay of islands for the last few years. Mr John Lundon appears as the principle actor in the play, mo I will take him first, as he is referred to by Mr Bryce as a "gentleman whose name occurs with great frequency in the evidence taken by me." This porson or gentleman, as the case may be, was a resident of Onehunga, some time previous to, his appearance in the Bay of Islands, and had figured in the annals.of hihtory by putting in a"service of somemonths in an Auckland institution for the correction of immorality for some absence of mind matter, that it is unnecessary hero to enter into. He migrated to the neighborhood of the Bay of Islands, holding the position of ploughman to a settler engaged in farming. A man of no education, but of more tlnin ordinary natural ability. In about 187 i, he actively canvassed for Mr M'Leod, who contested tha seat with Mr Carle ton, one o£ the oldest

and most esteemed members of the Assembly. Mr M'Leod succeeded in getting in, 1 very .much to the surprise of tho whole country.. _j,;..From this time Mr Lundon conceited; the idea of himself occupying of representative of the diHtridj&yfn'il at once commenced to place the Maoris on roll. - " .J§§; For reasons never properly,, Mr Limdon enjoyed a certain 'popularity amongst the Natives, and his only chance oC getting into the rested with them Hence the roason for his unscrupulously packing the roll with members of the Native race. Mr M'Leod resigned, and then followed Lundop's unsuccessful canvass against Mr Johri-i, Williams. The former, supported uy the Maori race, the latter by the intelligenecn&.of the district. At this time the roll was in a disgraceful state, bin not sufficiently so to place Mr L'mdon in the position he had so long , coveted, and then followed; to register the batch, which* culminated in bringing about tne Royal Commission. Such id a brief history of political atmosphere at the Bay of, Islands someyears previuos to the enquiry, and also such is the history of the gmtieman who Sir George Grey, in writing Eokianga natives when soliciting their support for his friend Mr John Landon; is J proail to describe as a fit pen'oa to pro- , cure juntite for the Maoris and the ivhole \ Native race The point really at issue, and the only one, that the general public feel an interest in , in—has Mr Bryco in his report placed the blame on tho right shoulders. I reply unquestionably he has altogether missed the mark. He has evidently tried to please everybody, or rather he has, by dividing the blame in equal moieties, and parcelling it out to the persons concerned, felt that he placed no particular individual in a position to laugh at another. But then conies a very natural question that must occur to every wellthinking man. Was this the object of his i mission ? I say undoubtedly not, and further contend that the evidence was, on i the face of his own report, most conclusive I that some of the dramatis psrsoncc wero far I deeper in the mire than others. Take, for j instance, the fact that the day previous to the hearing of the objections, the Government displace the registration officer, Mr Edward Marsh Williams, what neec| for further proof that Sir George and hi.sb(ilj'leagues were interested in this roll-stuffing? John Lundon was, on Sir George "Groy's own showing when writing to the ITokia-nga Natives, a personal fritfa'd'of .his own, and a very suitable one I should■ say,, aft<l will known as a political- supporter o± tjio I Ministry. It was apparent that if Mr "Williams was not removed that most,'if not all, his objections would bo hold good, ami consequently Mr Lundon's chance gone for ever. Mr Bryce has said tliiit '' as brother to the member of the district Mr E. M. Williams should have resigned." I do not see it, and for the following reasons : —l. Is it to be put dowu ae> a sejfcvident'truth, ■ that a person cannot act conscientiously Where a relative is concerned? For tho.sake of human .nature, I should be sorry to think this were so. ' I . believe even Sir George would admit some doubts-on such a point. 2. Mr Williams, as objector, was not the judge of his own objections. He.had simply to make them, and substantiate them if he could. Those objected to had ample notice to defend their claims, and the fact that the objections were not vexatious is clearly proved in Mr Bryce's report where he states — V It is my opinion that -of the 373' claims which were preferred, four fifths hadi no .legal qualification, 3nd.thafc,of the .remaining , fifth many wore vicious a ! mHiiK'"atid." I iind by carefully reading .Mr Bryce's report that his eensuro . rm> Mr Williams was wholly on the grounds that he ought to have resigned because he was the brother of the member of the district. I entirely disagree with this ruling. The result of the Government action in tho matter was that Mr E. W. Williams, the objector, being compelled to resign, there was no one to argue the objections, and so tho judge, Mr Lawlor, was, with the exception of when his personal knowledge came to his assistance, compelled to place every claim on the roll. Captain or Mr Baker, who is appointed to the office of Registration Officer, and who comes in at the last moment, and who receives a largo share of Mr Bryce's politeness, could have no knowledge at such short notice of his' particular duties, and even if he had, I do. not see how he could argue objections' made in the name of another person. The objections were made in the name of Mr Williams, and therefore Mr Williams, arul Mr Williams only, could prosecute them. This the Government knew well, and hence the solution to their action. It must be borne in mind that Mr Williams was not judge, nor did he hold any more power than I do, to either place a claim on the roll or strike it off. I therefore cannot understand why Mr Bryce was so severe on a gentleman whose character with tUo B;iy of Islands settlers for forty years at least stood untainted. Mr Lundon's conduct in the matter was clear enough, but tailing , all his surnjinlings I shall say— let him pass; from his lights, nothing bettor could be expected, but it is very different with the Government. Instead of saying in Mr Bryce's terms that .the conduct of the Government was inconsiderate, injudicious, and objectionable, I should say the converse way nearer tho truth. Considerate, inasmuch aain getting rid of the registration officer, their chances were improved in returning a political supporter. Judicious, because it showed a cunning that even Sir George might be proud of. Unobjectionable, in the light that ministerial objects that had been hitherto carried out with a questionable consistency had in this instance formed no exception, and so I shall say good-bye to the matter, hoping before long, for the country's sake, thafe I may say the samo to Sir George and his high fallnting.