TOWN EDITION. The Daily Telegraph THURSDAY, AUGUST 18, 1881.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 3163, 18 August 1881, Page 2

TOWN EDITION. The Daily Telegraph THURSDAY, AUGUST 18, 1881.

In explaining the objects the East Coast Native Land and Settlement Company had in view, Mr G. M. Reed, one of the provisional directors at Dunedin, said that "the company was as far as possible removed from tbe operations of the land-sharking community. It was only promoted for dealing with the native lands for the advantage of those who might become associated with them. It was not a land purchasing company. It was not intended to get huge areas of native lands for speculative purposes. It was in tended that this company should be as far as possible removed from the native land rings. He supposed the meeting was familiar with the way in which these land rings were worked. Six or seven persons joined together for the purpose of buying huge areas of native land, and when the land was settled round they sold large areas for their own advantage." Mr Reed then went on to explain what the company proposed doing by saying that " tbe capital of the East Coast Native Land and Settlement Company was£soo,ooo, in 100,000 shares of £5 each. Of these shares the natives were prepared to take 70,000 shares of the value of £350,000 ; 10.000 weie reserved for sale in the Home country, and the remaining 20,000 . respresenting £100,000, were now offered to the public. It was intended absolutely to call up only £1 per share. The sum, of £20,000 would be quite sufficient to take over an immense area of native land into the company. Assuming that the balance above £1 per share was required, four years and a half would elapse before it could be called up. With regard to tbe 10,000 shares to be sold at Home, they would be used for the purpose of forming special settlements. A guarantee of eight per cent, was given to the capitalist shareholders, who could take up land to the full value ot their shares, and receive onetenth more land than the area actually represented by their shares." Now, unless we had been told to the contrary we should have been under the the impression that the com pay was nothinjmore nor less than any other association for the acquisition of native lands. It is a pity Mr Reed referred to land sharking, because it leads to the question, what is the difference between six and seven persons joining together for the purpose of openly buying " a huge area of native land," and a company that accepts—we will not say " takes," or " buys"—that accepts 40,000 acres from the natives at the nominal price of 6s per acre to be paid for in company's shares ? We cannot help thinking that in the interests of the company Mr Rees would have done better to have kept silence. He no doubt exhibited the objects of the company in the best possible light to the European capitalist; but how about the natives from whose lands the whole of tbe profits are to arise ? It was made very clear that the European shareholders were to obtain a guaranteed interest on their investment at 8 per cent., but there was not a word said as to what the Maoris would get by parting with the control-—perhaps the fee simple—of their tribal estates. In connection with the company there seems|to be a good deal of chicken counting before the eggs are hatched. Now undoubtedly the native lands in this case are the the eggs. How many eggs are in the hands of the company ? Perhaps we shall hear more about it at the meeting to-night.