MAORI LAND DEAL

Dominion, Volume 9, Issue 2837, 31 July 1916, Page 8

MAORI LAND DEAL

DISSATISFIED NATIVES PETITION FOR INQUIRY ALLEGED EXPLOITATION A rliscussiou regarding a transaction in Native knds in the North, Auckland district took place in tho House on Saturday, on .1 report from tho Native Affairs Committee regarding a petition from Karaka Ratcno and 29 other Natives interested in an area of land known as tho Manukau Block, in tho Mangonui County. Petitioners asked for an inquiry regarding' the sale and partition of the block, more especially in regard to the alleged non-fulfilment of conditions of resolutions passed at tho meeting of assembled owners in regard to the exemption from sale of the interests of Natives residing on the block. The committee recommended that the matter bo referred to tho Government for inquiry. Mr. Tau Henare said that some of his constitutents had been very badly treated in this matter. He hoped that tho Government would order a full inquiry. . Mr. J". A. Young, chairman of the Native Affairs Committee, said' that at tho meeting of assembled owner's at which the salo of the land in question was agreed to several Natives, including a number who resided on the land, agreed to the sale only on condition that their interests should be partitioned out. Some, but not the whole, of these interests were partitioned out.- The case appeared to bB one in which a certain class of lawyers speculated in Native lands without any intention of settling on or improving thorn, but with the object of selling them at a higher profit. The official records showed that the present case had reference to a transaction in which Mr. ]?. G. Dunlop, solicitor) took a prominent part. He (Mr. Young) had unsuccessfully endeavoured to get Mr. Dunlop to attend the meeting of the committee. Mr. Dunlop did not reply to the first communication, but in reply to a later communicationj he staled that he would not. appear before the committeo unless the expenses of himself, or his counsel .were granted: To this he (Mr. Young) would not agree. In a letter forwarded by Mr.'' Dunlop ho made statements that wero not borne out by tho official records and the evidence given before the- committee. History of the Case. Mr. Young thou went into the history of tho case. He said that on February 2i, IUI2, an application was lodged in .tho Native Land Court, Auckland, to purchase tho Manukau'No. 1 Bloclc at iivo shillings per acre. This application was lodged by Artbnr G. Quartley, and signed by him as solicitor for the applicants, who were Fergus Gale Dunlop, Iris Frances Dunlop, Katherine Alice Quartley, and Arthur Gilbert Quartley. Later in tho same day another application, was lodged in the same Court to purchaso the same land at twelve and six an acre. This application was signed by F..G. Dunlop, acting as solicitor for the applicants, who were Arthur Gilbert Quartley, Henry Sachs, Fergus Gale Dunlop, and Iris Frances Dunlop. In November, 1912, said Mr. Young, the President of the Tokerau Maori Laud' Board, at the request of tho Native Department, made a report upon the partition of the lands concerned. Eight blocks were dealt with, and tho report stated that in every instance except that of No. 1 Block, which was adjourned, the resolutions put to the meeting of assembled owners were that tho land be sold to Fergus G'alo Dunlop and others for sums varying from ten to twenty-four shillings per aero. Tho resolutions were carried, but not in every case unanimously, and in most instances it was agreed that certain portions bo cut out from tho sale. In May, 1914, the Registrar of the Native Laud Court, writing to the.Under-. Secretary of the Native Department, reported that in' March. 1913, at a sitting of tho Native Land Court at Mangonui, partitions were effected by Judge M'Cormiek cutting out the permanent kiangas and cultivations of Natives living on the block, and also the interests of Natives whom the Maori Land Board considered landless. A number of .the Natives wero not. satisfied with the partition as made, and Supreme Court proceedings wero instituted for a writ of prohibition against tho execution of the memorandum of transfer in Manukau F Block. The Registrar added that, the parties subsequently, came to an arrangement by which a certain area was rotransfcrred to the Natives. The case was then withdrawn. 'Hie. facts as represented to the committee wore that some of tho Natives interested lmd no money with which to continue tho litigation. A Substantial Grievance. Mr. Young then quoted from a report by Judge Wilson, of tho Native I/and Court. Judge AVilson stated that in his opinion the petitioners and all other owners in the block concerned had a substantial cause of grievance on account of the inadequacy of tho sum paid for .tho land. The prico paid was a little in excess of tho Government valuation, but this valuation, in Judge Wilson's opinion, was "ridiculously low.' - Further, it appeared that some of the Natives were misled regarding the price that they were to. be paid for some of the subdivisions. Judge Wilson further stated that it was, difficult to explain why Mr. Dunlop and the board did not draw the attention of Judge M'C'ormicTc (by wffom the interests of dissentient and resident. owners were partitioned out), to tho full list of those Natives desiring to be partitioned out, Judgo Wilson also stated that the Board directed that tho name of only one landless Native should bo cut out of Block F. Judge Wilson also said that attached to the Board's file was a list of the names of ninety landless Natives, of whom only twenty -had their interests partitioned out. so that apparently tho shares of seventy landless Natives passed with the salo in spite of tho prohibition in force at the time. These remarks, added Judge Wilson, also applied with lesser force to the other subdivisions. , Dereliction of Duty? Mr. .Young, proceeding, said that ho thought there- had been a dereliction of duty on the part of someone. Mr. A. H. Hindmarsh: What about the Native Land Court Judges? Mr. Young said the Judges were honourable men, and they did their duty so far as they were able. The whole facts, however, were not always put before tho Judges. It was not so much a question of what was put beforo them by a certain class of lawyers as what was not put beforo them. Iu this case the Natives were without, the meaus necessary to enable them to employ the best possible counsel. Ho hoped that tho fullest inquiry would bo made into this case. Ho would like to see a Judge of tho Supremo Court attached to tho inquiry. This kind of speculation in Native lands by persons who had no intention of settling upon them ought to bo stopped. These speculators should bo deprived of their interests in Nativo lands unless they improved it, and it should bo set aside for the purposes of settlement. The practice had Ijcen going on for many years, and it was a bad one. A motion that the report of tho Committee lie on" tho table and be referred to the Government for inquiry was carried.