AUCKLAND SPECIAL.

Gisborne Times, Volume V, Issue 118, 29 May 1901, Page 2

AUCKLAND SPECIAL.

THE BOGUS “ KING ” AND THE DUKE. (Special to Times.) A .jkland, last night.

Why the Duke .•■ ill not recoguiso an aquatic display he o by King Mahuta and his followers h -s caused much trouble. The columns <.t the press have been crowded daily during the past few weeks with correspondence upon the .matter. Last night’s Star contained an interesting and lengthy article from the pen of a well-known Poverty Bay resident, who is a recognised authority on Maori affairs. The writer advances weighty reasons why Mahuta’s request to present an independent address to the Duke at Auckland should not be acceded to. The article proceeds :—“ Each tribe fondly hoped that the principle settlement in their respective territories should have the honor of welcoming the Royal pair. Their highest ambition was to show their j devotion and loyalty to the Crown, but after the matter had been carefully weighed it was found impossible to afford each tribe the honor coveted. During- the whole of this time not a single indication was made by “ King ” Mahuta or his following to wolcomo our Royal visitors, and no opinion was expressed by him until after Rotorua had been fixed upon finally .its the locality for tho Maori reception. When it had been absolutely settled by tho tribes that the great gathering could be held nowhere else but at Rotorua, then Mahuta said “ I am King of New Zealand, lot the King of England stand before my face,” meaning, I understand, that tho Heir Apparent and his Royal Duchess were to call upon him at his residence. When Mahuta found that tho Government would not accede to his desire, what course did ho pursue'? In what direction did his’ loyalty bubble. Ho despatched messengers to Ngatipoua, Ngatimaru, Ngaitorangi, Maniapoto, and other tribes, urging thorn not to go Rotorua. He wanted, or his advisors sought on his behalf, special recognition from tho Heir Apparent to the throne ; he sought to be placed in a position more exalted than that of those distinguished Maori chiefs and tribes who have always boen loyal. At the best, Mahuta’s loyalty is of a negative character. Now, what would bo the rational outcome if Mahuta were to get the prominence he through his advisers isjendeavoring to obtain '? Well, imprinms.the Government would be guilty of a scandalous breach of faith ; they would be breaking their pledged word and solemn assurances given practically to four-fifths of the Maori population of the colony. It was on tho distinct and absolute understanding that at Rotorua and nowhere else tho formal reception of Royalty by the Maori race was to be held. The tribes all along the East Coast and more distant parts of the island sot to loyally and prepared to “ trek ” to Rotorua or get there by any means available to prove to the late Queen’s grandson their devotion and loyalty to his Royal father the King. To accede to ■ tho request asked for by Mahuta would be to submit to great insult the chiefs and people who had never wavered in their loyalty to the Throne. To grant the request asked for by Mahuta would bo a last and probably final effort to put lifo in the *■ dead bones” of the Kiugite cause, a cause for which Auckland has suffered for over 40 years. To grant Mahuta the request asked for would be a grave political error, and one that Auckland would for many a day have reason to repent.” Tho ex-Gisborneito then .explains that tho days are long past when that distinguished Statesman, Sir G. Grey, in referring to Waikato movement said, “ Wo will not cut down the King’s flagstaff, we will dig round it.” Why cannot Mahuta go to Rotorua, adds the writer, and there along with the assembled chiefs of the Maori race present his formal address;--.An attempt has been made to show there were difficulties insurmountable it was alleged against Mahuta going to Rotorua. It was also alleged that a Ngatikahungu chief in generations gone by had suffered degradation at the hands of Ngatimantiapoto ; that Hon. Jas. Carroll was connected with that tribe that on their behalf was seeking utu. This is one of the absurd reasons put forth. Utu, sir, is a Maori word; it has more than one signification in tho presentinstance. It may bo translated as satisfaction or payment for a grievance, real or imaginary, political or otherwise, and in the sense used meant that the Hon. James Carroll wished to embarrass or cause some slight to be cast upon Mahuta and his people. Now,-Hon. E. Mitchelson and Mr Hobbs called on Mahuta, and both these gentlemen are native-born New Zealanders and are thoroughly versed in the Maori language and customs. Hon. E. Mitchelson was formerly Native Minister in the Government opposed to the present Ministry, whilst Hobbs belonged to a political party long since defunct. As to the imputation against the present Native Minister, it might with equal fairness be alleged against the two latter gentlemen that they sought out Mahuta, and that their ulterior object in so doing was to embarrass tho present Government in its native policy. Anyone acquainted with the public career of the three gentlemen named would regard such an imputation with unmitigated contempt.” The article concludes: “ Mahuta’s course is clear, and the road to Rotorua is easy.”