The Gisborne Times PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. GISBORNE. OCT. 17, 1906.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXIII, Issue 1907, 17 October 1906, Page 2

The Gisborne Times PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. GISBORNE. OCT. 17, 1906.

The Maori Lands Settlement Amend rnent Bill, introduced into tho House of Representatives (and of which we published a synopsis from our special Parliamentary representative on Monday), is practically the second of tho policy measures ! ,of the Q-overnmcnt. The same ideas that characterised the now defunct Land Bill pervade this measure also, and it hu9 been altered in many respects to square with some of tho leading principles of that Bill. If it does not meet with the fate of its predecessor thero will bo more than

one disappointed person in this colony’, for the Bill in no sense supplies what is wanted to bring ’the waste millions of acres of Maori lauds into productiveness. The Maori Land Boards are to be increased from three to four members, and this in itself will in no way facilitate tho business, and already the colony has tasted of the dilatoriness of the Minister in the first place in appointing the Boards, and of the Boards themselves when they are

appointed, for it is not characteristic of tho Maori to hurry things along where tho leasing of native lands is concerned. One can hardly blame tfye

Maori in this respect when ho lias such ft sublime example of indolence in tho |inisim of tho Native Minister himself, ami wo )iii.vo hoard of documents li iv ieg boon forwarded for tlm Minister's

:;oneidorution nearly nine mouths ag<> that luivo not ynt boon rr plied to. If that is to bo taken uh a fair example of the expedition that will bo exere sed under tho now Act if it should over pass into law, wo may hope to have t,ho wasto native lamia settled upon by the date when tlm last trumpet shall sound. Instead of simplifying matters tho Hill contains as many perplexities is have hithorto been in vogue; but tho one thing that a Bill of this nature should provide for it docs not do ; tii»t is, it should provide for the settlement of tho land first and the determining of interests afterwards, if necessary, not by Maori Boards, liovvevor, for we

do not boliovo tho Boar la will over entertain any dosiro to push on tho settlement of those lauds. Indeed, thoro is ample ground for thinking that tho Minister is no moro anxious to do it than they are, and therefore any legislation that may bo passed under Ins regime, and whatever its provisions, will become a dead letter for want of administrative activity. The only practical treatment of tho native lunds question is to legislate for tho immediate leasing cf all native lands not actually occupied or required by natives far their own purposes, and to fund tho proceeds with the Public Trustee at a fair rate of intorest until such time as tho individual claims ou that fund arc ascertained, and then to distribute tho fund as those claims are

verified by tho Native I.and Court Judges, upon whoso certificate payments could be made. If that had been done twenty years ago the vast areas of woeds and scrub that are likely to benefit nobody for a great many years to come would have been settled, and tho Maori owners would to-day bo in a vory much better position than they are. But “ taihoa ”is the ruling principle of all native land legislation, and it is almost hopeless to expect that those lands will bo utilised for the benefit of either Maori or European under present circumstances. Certainly the new Bill lends no probability to any other conclusion, and therefore it may just as well be consigned to limbo for all tho good it will do except to make more work perhaps for the lawyers, who aro tho only persons as a rule who benefit by amendments of the law, but especially of native land law, which has by this time got into a most inextricable muddle that nobody can clearly interpret.

Moke “lurid indelicacy” characterised the lecture of Mr Bligh last night when he unmistakeably showed the class of man he is It is not our pur pose to descend to his level, and we would troat him with the contempt that all unscrupulous vilifiers such as he deserves but for the fact that it may be thought wo are afraid of hit bullying, untruthful statements. When we dealt with him yesterday we treated him more than fairly. We gave him credit for truthfulness and good intention; we applauded hie woik but decried his method of doing it; wo offered to assist him in that work if he would prosecute it in a way that we could approve. And for this we have been vilified, abused, and misrepresented in a manner worthy of the most accomplished Billingsgate notoriety. The man who professes to teach purity, and calls upon people to reverence Christ in fitful outbursts, ha 3 proved himself capable of the most unchristian traits when he is offorod a little wholesome advice. That his manner of doing this was not as polite as it should be is perhaps not his fault, so we will not blame him for that; but we do expect truthfulness from everyone, especially the man who professedly comes to us to “ sweep away ignorance and reveal the pure gold of knowledge,” for he cannot be ignorant of the difference between truth and its antithesis. Such a man must know that wilful misrepresentation is one of tho worst forms of lying, and yot ho hesitates not to indulge that vile propensity. He says we have tried to destroy his work, and the statement is simply not true He hinted that wo had done nothing for the causa of purity but publish an adveitisement of a useless article, and challenged us to do something for the cause he professes to advance. Well, for a salary we are prepared to do what he is trying to do in his misguided way and to do it better ; but what are the facts ? We have denounced quacks more effectively than he has done, and without “ playing to the gallery ” of obscenity and tickling the. ears of those who gloat over things that make sensitive people blush for shame. We have expunged from the columns of this paper the only advertisement that was objectionable iu that sense, and the one he referred to will follow when it can be legally done, that is, without breaking an unbreakable contract, although that advertisement has no rolation to impurity. We do not boast of our efforts iu this direction as our blatant accuser is so fond of doing, nor do we draw a salary for it. We do not boa3t the possession of manliness and then do unmanly things. We give our opponents fair play, and have offered Mr Bligh a column a day of our space to reply in police language to our expressed opinions; but Mr Bligh chooses the more unmanly course of misrepresenting our actions and words where we cannot get the privilege of replying. The whole logic of his attempted attack was that the li.mes contained an article that did not meet with his approval; but he never attempted to quote a sentence from it »• analyse it, preferring to ridicule an idvortisement the insertion of which

wo are no more responsible for than lie is, and to suggest the inference that because the advertisement displayed the qualities of an article which he condemned the whole purport of our remarks must be equally ridiculed. We cannot follow him to such depths of unmanliness, for we prefer to dis - cus3 the matter in a more sensible way and give reasons for the faith that is in us; nor do we propose to sling back at him his insolent porsonalitieo and attempted witticisms suggesting that

there wore “a few respectable people” connected with this paper outside the literary stall, because we are convinced that the cause of rent purity, and morality, and uprightness, and gentlemanly conduct demands a dilierent treatment—a treatment that would not degrade those things that we desire to uphold. Flippancy and abuse can never advance those things, aud it is

our earnest desire that Mr Biigt should recognise that fact as well at others that we have expressed for hit boneiit. But his exhibition last night gives us no hope, so we leave his unpardonable conduct and ungentle-, manly actions to frizzle upon the grid-. iron of public opinion until ho sees lit to improve them,