THE NATIVE AND HIS LAND

Dominion, Volume 8, Issue 2388, 18 February 1915, Page 9

THE NATIVE AND HIS LAND

MR: BEERF, REPLIES TO MR. FR.ASEH. In reply to Mt. : A- L. D. Eraser's letter appearing in our issue of Monday, last, Mr. Oswald Bcero writes: — "I am glad of the opportunity of replying to some ;of the statements made by Mr. Fraser. In the first plpce, ho makes it appear that Judge Gilfedder lias been unjustly criticised and blamed by me for his administration of the law, and he says that I endeavoured to do an injustice to a Judge who has the courage of his convictions and'who fearlessly administers the law. as, he Buds it. Nothing in my -statements could have legitimately been interpreted into an attack on the Judge person-: ally, nor did I have any desire to ..do him any injustice. I recognise that 'he has the. courage of his convictions, aiid fearlessly administers the law according to bis reading of it.-' What I wdshtjd ce bring into the daylight was that the law as interpreted by the Judge was not, in my opinion, what the Legislature intended. Section 207 of the Nativ|e Land Act, 1909, provides that all ,prdhibitions or restrictions on the aliena'r f-ion of Native land shall be removed and that subject to the provisions oS the Act "a Native may alienate or die} pose of any land or interest therein ill the same manner as a European and Native land may.be alienated or _ disposed of in the same manner , as if it' was European land." • The Act further provides that all alienations 'of Native land require the confirmation of the Maori Land Board or Native Land Court; and Section 220 provides that no alienation -shall be; confirmed unless the Board or Court is satisfied that the document effecting tlie, alienation has been executed in manner required by the" Act; that. the con-: sideration is adequate; that the purchase money or consideration has been.' paid; that no Native will by, reason of the alienation become landless; that no person acquiring any land under the alienation owns more than the area of land allowed by the Land Act; and that the alienation is not oontrary to equity or good conscience or "to the interests of the Native alienating." Under this last provision the Judge has rightly or wrongly adopted a policy 6f refusing to confirm alienations unless he is personally of opinion that the alienation is good far the Native and as the Judge holds strong views of what is and is not good for the Natives the result is in a great many instances that Natives who have more land than is necessary, for their use are unable to sell their lands notwithstanding th'iat they are offered the full values therefor, and the. result is distinctly to the disadvantage of the Europeans and certainly detrimental to tho progress of the Dominion.

The Act' as interpreted puts it in the power of the J udgc to block all alienations if he should think tit to do so. Mr. Eraser refers to Section 220 of the Act, .which provides that any person aggrieved by the refusal by the Board or Judge to confirm an alienation may within one. month, thereafter apply to the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus. Any proceedings under this provision, however, as Mr. Eraser knows from 'his reference jto .the case of. O'Rourke v, Ikaroa Maori Land -Board, would be futile where the board bases its decision iipon the ground that it is not in the opinion .of the board to the advantage of the Native that the alienation should be' confirmed, as the Supreme Court cannot order the. board to alter its- opinion. Mr. Eraser, in commenting-upon two cases I referred to, suggests that in one case I had v not correctly stated the faots. He says: "From on© present at the hearing and who is my informant, I presume to say he did not, the Native woman-alienating received about one-third of the purchase money in cash, tho remaining two-thirds being held by the board, and the interest therenn at the rate of four per centum is being-paid to her, plus ail allowance of twelve shillings per week out of- the principal." The'fact is that tho application for the. money was made to Judge Gilfedder in ! September and again in .October of last year, and twice refused, a further application was made by me personally to Judge Gilfedder last month, and he finally promised to make the allowance of twelve shillings per week as stated by Mr. Eraser, but this promise was not mado in Court but whilst I was accompanying the Judge out of the Parliamentary Buildings. Who, then, was Mr. Eraser's informant?

The other case commented upon by Mr. Fraser.is that of a Native owing land valued at over £4000 (apart from the land she desired to alienate), and who was -refused permission to sell a piece of land although the purchase money was to be devoted, to the purchase of land where she. resided. Mr. Fraser. defends the Judge's action upon the ground that ttoe purchased land would be available for payment of any debts the Native might hereafter contract. Why should not the land be so available for payment of the Native's I just debts if she has ample Native lands left that could not be so attached, and why should she be debarred from her legitimate desire of buying land where she and her family reside, and which they desired to farm? ; From the final remarks of Mr. Fraeer it would appear that he had altogether missed the point of my'.contention. He says "that everyone Ijaving art heart the interests of the aboriginal race must respect the attitude .taken up by Judge Gilfedder, who declines to allow the needy or improvident Maori to bo exploited in. order to rtickle the Inst for greed of the landgrabber or > speculator." ' ,

No one las objected 1«o fair, and reasonable protection.. being afforded to the needy or improvident Native'. There is do possibility of the Natives being exploited, as the law requires that the purchaser sliall 'pay tlie full value of the laud. The law also protects the Native lands from the landgrabber, or speculator, aa no one can acquire more land than that provided for by the Land Act. But there still remains the bona-fide Bottler who .is being debarred from .purchasing Nativo land at the full value thereof notwithstanding that the' Native owner, has sufficieut other lands for: his occupation and support, and notwithstanding that the Native does not hitm6elf cultivate tho land desired to be acquired. „