THE NATIVE AND HIS LANDS

Dominion, Volume 8, Issue 2386, 16 February 1915, Page 7

THE NATIVE AND HIS LANDS

'A REPLY TO MR. BEERE. (To tho Editor.) Sir, —In your issue of tho 10th inst. you devote considerable space to an interview with Mr. Oswald Beere on Na-

. live land-ownerß, Native legislation, ■ and the disabilities accruing therefrom. ' Mr. Beoro is to be commended for pub- ' licly casting tho defects of our legislation under the microscope of legal analysis, and it is a matter for regret that those who are in a position to speak with authority on this much-neglected subject, fail, to recognise that an exchange of ideas may do much to benefit both European and Maori. Personally, this letter is written for two outstanding reasons, ono is, that a Government officer is somewhat unjustly criticised, and is unable to defend himself with tho samo weapons as his criticiser, viz., through the Press. Tho other is that I join issue with ijj. Beoro in many of his deductions and interpretations pf. tho Native Land Acts. Mr. Beere is evidently aggrieved because Judge Gilfedder, as President of the Ikaroa Maori Land Board, did not approve of two applications submitted by him for approval or confiimation. These were sales by a Native woman to a European. Mr. Beere opens his case by blaming the Judge, but concludes by laying the blame ou the Act, which he terms "an absurd law." Let us review his charges. In the first case quoted by Mr. Beere, a Native woman worth Bome £4000 desired to sell her Native land at Government valuation, .in order to ' purchase another area (presumably European .land), where she_ resides. The-board refused ( confirmation, holding that such a transaction was not in the interests of the alienator. Now, Section 220 ,of the Native Land Act, 1909, expressly forbids the board to confirm a sale unless it is satisfied that the alienation is not _ contrary to the interests of the Native vendor. It has to be remembered that Native land is not liable for debts, nor is its assets in the estate of a Native who may die or become bankrupt.European land is liable to bo taken in execution to satisfy debts, and in many cases where Maoris have sold their broad acres and bought European town sections with the proceeds, they soon found the inevitable bailiff at their doors. If a Native exchanges his Native land for European laud, the latter, ipso facto, becomes Native land, and is proteoted as such, but, If he sells his Native land, and with, the purchase money buys European land, the latter remains European land, and is liable to seizure. Therefore, it is a matter for the jealous discretion of the board, in each individual case, to decide whether the' transaction is in the interest of the Native or not. If, as Mr. Beere thinks, Judge Gilfedder's refusal to confirm the sale was unwarranted, he can have recourse to the Supreme Court, for the same section (220) distinctly provides in subsection 5 that if confirmation is erroneously refused because the board is of opinion that the alienation is contrary to the interests of the Native alienating, "any person aggrieved bv the refusal may within one month thereafter apply to the Supreme Court for a'writ of mandamus." Consequently, if Judge Gilfedder'B decision was not justifiable, Mr, Beere had his legal remedy. Possibly in the light of the decision in O'Rourke v. Ikaroa Maori Land Board (31 N.Z.L.R., p. 434) he dieaded failure. Whether this be so or not, it seems hardly chivalrous, after abandoning his legal avenues, to side-track into the columns of tho Tress, and endeaviur to do an injustice to a Judge who has tho courage of his convictions, and who fearlessly administers the Act as he findß it.

Now, with regard to Mr. Beero's second case. It seems that the board confirmed the; sale, but decided to hold tho money in pursuance of Section 92 of tho amending Act of 1913, which gives discretionary power to the board, if it is of opinion that l it is not in the interest of the vendor to pay him the purchase money, "to require the same to be paid to the board or'to the Publio Trustee." Surely, -then, the board acted well within its jurisdiction. . But did Mr. Beere accurately state the ; facts? From one present at the hearing and who is my informant, I presume to say he did not. The Native woman alienating received about 1-3 of the purchase money in cash;, the remaining 2-3 being held by the board and the interest thereon, at the rate of four per cent, is being paid to her, plus an allowance of 12s. per week out of the principal. Surely the board in its discretion acted wisely. Logically, if the vendor' incurs debts to an amount that 1-3 pf the purchase- money could not pay, sho must have been "landless" at the date of' salo. Section 220 prohibits the board from confirming a sale if such is calculated to render the vendor landless within the meaning of the Act, and the Act defines a "landless .Native" as one "whose total beneficial interests in Native freehold land . . . are insufficient for his adequate maintenance." Thef deduction from this must inevit-. ably be that a Native vendor having debts that she is unable to discharge without selling part of her lands, must be prima facie ovidence .'that her income from her Native lands is insufficient for her adequate maintenance. Certainly Section 91 of the Act of 1913 allows, the board, under special circumstances, to approve of a sale which would render.the vendor landless, but Section 92 permits the board to hold or invest the proceeds as. indicated in an earlier portion of this letter. Notwithstanding' Mr. Beere's statement that considerable exception is taken by the legal profession to. Judge Gilfedder's interpretation of the law, I fail to see where that interpretation is at fault. My opinion is no doubt wrong and the legal profession, as represented by Mr. Beere, :s on a good wicket. That being so, why doeß not Mr. Beere and his learned friends take a test case before the Supreme Court in pursuance of Section 220? The question as to whether the law is right or wrong or is "absurd" as Mr. Beere somewhat disrespectfully terms it, is one for the Legislature, not ' for a Judge ; whose duty it is to administer it as it comes : before him.

For many years, at least for 25 or 30, successive Governments have endeavoured to protect the Maori from himself. His lands were restricted, areas of acquisition were reduced, but still the insidious whittling of individual and family estates proceeded, until today we find as the acres grow less the few remaining owners become more improvident—they have reached the maelstrom of the motor-car era I Does it not require a strong hand, at the helm to stem this eddy? Evidently Mr. Beere \ dees not approve of Judge (Jilfedder's nautical abilities. The theory or rule that Mr. Beero would propound or lay down that a Native should be allowed to sell all his. estate down to tho absolute minimum necessary for his support is a bad and fallacious one, and no Judges, except in extraordinary eases and exceptional circumstances, approve of the "irreducible minimum" theory. No better illustration can be given of this than some of the cases where Natives have been Europcanised under the Act of 1912. In at least ono case, where a Native has been removed from tho aegis of such a conscientious, friendly guardian as Judge Giifedder, many thousands havo been squandered and tho 1 financial precipice looms near. Mr. Beere pictures the country the home of the noxious weed, the playground of tho rabbit, should alienation by sale of Native land be in any way restricted. This is nonsense, and Mr. Beero knows it, for there is always the leasehold tenure—a tenure that develops settlement, minimises exploitation by the apwitiktofi and ■ ensures a- eastiimouti ,MLK» «■mi!Baj9j«Loszaa_. jEkaaii

Us who have experience of Natives and their traits of character and business capabilities, reoognise that the time haa not yet come for removing absolutely all restrictions and protection, from {hem or their lands; We, the Europeans, have still a sacred trust in our hands, whioh should not be carelessly cast aside to satisfy. the pleadings of a profession or tho cupidity of their earth-hungry clients. In conclusion I feel bound to say that everyone with a sense of justice having- at heart the interest of tho aboriginal race, must respect the attitude taken up by Judge Gilfedder, who declines to allow the needy or improvident Maori to be exploited in -order to tickle the lust •of greed of the landgrabber or speculator.—l am, etc., A. L. D. ERASER. Hastings, February 13, 1915.