The Evening Star SATURDAY, AUGUST 14, 1875.

Evening Star, Issue 3892, 14 August 1875, Page 2

The Evening Star SATURDAY, AUGUST 14, 1875.

Notwithstanding the remarks of the ‘ New Zealand Times ’ respecting our views regarding the Compact of 1856, we are still of opinion that the Colony is bound by the conditions then agreed to. Never was sueh an absurd argument urged as that, because the Native Lands Act, 1862, provided different conditions from those of the Compact for the North Island in regard to Native lands, existing arrangements regarding South Island lands were “thenceforth inoperative.” The gist of the Compact of 1856 was that on condition of the South Island Provinces paying the New Zealand Company’s debt of „£200,000, in terms of the twelfth clause— That this House is of opinion that tho administration of the waste lands of each Province should he transferred to the Provincial Government of such Province, and the land revenue shall be made Provincial revenue.

Our contemporary maintains that— The so-called “octoipaot* was based on the assumption that the Crown should continue to exercise the pre-emptive right to purchase Maori territory, so flirt In process of time the Native title should be extinguished over the North Island, and a land fund created for the Northern Provinces; hut for political considerations, seven years afterwards, the “compact” was voided by Act, and no equivalent lias yet been given to the North Island, When, therefore, Southern writers dilate upon the “rapacity and groed of the North,” they ignore theyxact facts of the case. The truth is, the spirit of the financial resolutions has been discarded for many years, as unsuited to the circumstances of the Colony. We need not now stop to consider whether it was politic to waive the Crown’s right of pre-emption. We simply state the fact, and as a fact it cannot be ignored by either side in the constitutional struggle which begins to. day.

Loose and illogical as all shuffling is of necessity, it is not often that even political shuffling is carried to so great an extent as in the paragraph just quoted. The basis of the Compact was not what the ‘ New Zealand Times ’ asserts, but when it was made it was stated to be the equitable adjustment of certain pecuniary liabilities, as is evident from the following clauses:—

First: That it is expedient, without delay, to make provision for certain outstanding liabilities, and to permanently adjust tlu> public burdens of the Colony, which adjust-

toent ought to embrace a statement of the New Zealand Company’* debt, and the charge on the loan fund for the purchase of Native lands. Secondly : That, as part of such agreement, it is necessary to make provision by loan for sums absolutely required for Native land purchases for the ensuing financial year, and to make permanent provision for the same object. By the fourth clause the sum of £IOO,OOO was to be borrowed to satisfy immediate liabilities, and provide for the purchase of Native lands. By the sixth clause— As a further part of such general and permanent arrangement it is expedient to exonerate the land fund from its liability, and for the purchase of Native lands to provide a capital fund for carrying on such purchase: with which object it is expedient to borrow the sura of £180,t)00, to be raised in England upon the most favorable terms practicable.

These clauses have exclusive reference

to the North Island. Next follow the conditions to be observed by the Middle Island, to which reference has been already made. It is plain by this Compact that two parties were created by it, the North and Middle Islands, each of which had separate and independent conditions to be observed ; it is plain, too, that on those conditions being fulfilled, no equitable right can be claimed to disturb an arrangement expressly and - repeatedly declared to be per-

nanent. Otago and the ' Middle [sland Provinces have faithfully fulilled the agreement, and have paid dieir quota towards the redemption of lie New Zealand Company’s debt. On ivery ground, therefore, of reason and ustice they are entitled to the full enoyment of their territorial revenue, five Nor them journals object to this m the frivolous pretence that by the Aet of 1862 capitalists were allowed to compete with the Crown for the purchase of Native lands, thus altering the conditions of the North Island side of the Compact. Now, what had the Middle Island to gain by that 1 It was, apparently, a measure of simple fairness to the Natives, and had it been worked with due regard to justice to them and to the colonists, it might have proved a beneficial measure. Unfortunately, directly or indirectly, it led to those disastrous wars that have cost the Middle Island so much ; for loose and irregular contracts were made which

led to - disputes, heartburnings, and Woodshed. General Cameron trulysaid the Natives required more protection than the colonists. It is very plain to the most unthinking that this alteration fa the North Island mode of acquiring Native lands did not in the slightest degree alter the contract between the contracting parties. Had the North swept away the Native race with the help of South Island money, not the value of an acre would have been allowed to the South in return for the help given. The Compact of 1856 would then have been held to be in force, and had the ‘ New Zealand Times ’ been then printed in Wellington, its arguments would have been very cogent in favor of honor and honesty in observing its conditions. Our able contemporary must have had duet in his eyes when he charges us with “ fomenting discord ” by pointing out the equity of the claim of the South to a fulfilment of the Compact. By consent, the conditions of the North to it were altered in 1862. It was sought by the North Island settlers themselves for their own advantage, and agreed to; but that did not alter the position ©f the South, as strangely asserted by the ‘New Zealand Times.’ Whether Crown or capitalist bought the Northern land, the Southern Provinces paid their quota to the New Zealand Company’s debt, and thus fulfilled the condition of the permanent arrangement by which the proceeds of their lands were secured to them. If, as our contemporary says, it was “an exceedingly lopsided affair,” it was one of Northern manufacture, and we incline to think has proved, indirectly, a dear bargain to the South. But for good or evil it was made, and is now sought to be evaded on the flimsiest and most untenable of shuffles. The people of the South will do well to remember that they who advocate this impudent proposal of repudiation are the opponents of the Abolition Bill.