THE HAWKE’S BAY TIMES. NAPIER, THURSDAY, OCT. 24, 1861.

Hawke's Bay Times, Volume I, Issue 17, 24 October 1861, Page 2

THE HAWKE’S BAY TIMES. NAPIER, THURSDAY, OCT. 24, 1861.

Quit readers will have noticed that, in our opinion, much of the blame for the existing unsatisfactory state of the “ grass-money' 5 question rests on those of the innholders who, in open or secret defiance of the law, have leased unpurchased lauds from the Native owners ; and thus, for the sake of their own profit, have caused this subject to become almost an insuperable difficulty to the Government, and inflicted on the Province incalculable injuries by keeping the unalienated lands of the Province out of the hands of the Government and out of the market; and in those cases where the Government have succeeded iu effecting a purchase they have imposed the additional sums that must be paid to the Native owners in of their short-sighted policy, as a tax on th<N community. The excuses offered by these gentry for their conduct have no foundation in fact,—viz., the deficiency of land on which to depasture their flocks, —as there lias always been plenty of others willing to take their surplus stock on terms which must be conceded to be sufficiently liberal; but even if this excuse were true, it affords no reason for their transgressing the law and entailing all the difficulties consequent thereon on the colony. We have, ere now, shewn how their conduct has brought its own punishishment upon them, and of necessity at the same time on those who are not to blame, in the recent aggressive acts of the Natives, and which cannot be expected always to end as quietly as hitherto. We do not doubt that w r e shall shortly hear of resistance and retaliation on the part of the settlers, who cannot be expected to endure all the inflictions "which the i\Xaories may please to heap on them. There is, however, another thing which must be borne in mind in treating of this question. "While we condemn the Maories tor defying the law, we must not forget that they were not the first to do this; while w r e hlame the magistrates for allowing passions to run riot over law and order, we < must blame them still more for permitting the law s in the first instance to be violated by tire squatter. We deny that there w r as ever any real difficulty in the way of enforcing the law against illegal occupiers of Nath e lands, and if proof he required refer to sundry convictions that have from time to time been obtained and enforced under the ordinance, chiefly against the poorer class of settlers, who may have rented a garden or small parcel of land of the Natives, while those of a higher caste have generally been allowed to go scot free, whether from political considerations or otherwise wo do not say, but the fact is w r ell knowm that those iu whose hands the duty of prosecution and conviction lay, were themselves amongst the most flagrant transgressors of the law. We all know ho"w success in any illegal course emboldens others to follow in the same, and though they are none the less guilty from the impunity they enjoy, the authorities which thus permit an evil to grow until it assumes a gigantic stature, and renders it almost impossible to cope with, are by far the more Linmeahlo parlies. We have known Resident Magistrates, themselves illegfel renters of Native lands, execute the law against their poorer neighbor. But in the great majority of cases brought before a Court, the proceedings have been (either from political or other causes) a mere mockery and sham. In proof of this, let any one impartially survey the late mock prosecutions for breach of the Native Land Purchase Ordinance, particularly noting the tnrn-stile conduct of that most estimable gentleman our late Superintendent, Mr. T. 11. Fitzgerald. As the subject may have partially faded from the mind of some of ns, ami may be new to others, we here give a review of this most remarkable farce. It was in the month of March, 18G0, that Mr. Curling moved the notice standing in

his name—“ That this Council is of opinion it is desirable, for the public interests, and would greatly facilitate the acquisition of Native lands by the Crown, that the provivisions ot the Native Land Purchase Ordinance relating to the illegal occupation of those lands by Europeans should he strictly enforced.” Mr. Curling wished to withdraw his motion, hut was strongly opposed by His Honor, who, in a telling speech, detailed the evils this illegal occupancy occasioned, obstructing the Land Purchase Department, and threatening to altogether prevent the acquisition of Native lands from them by the Government. As might be supposed, the Superintendent carried the day, and the motion passed. Now, after events proved that there was not the shadow of sincerity in the able and telling speech of the worthy Superintendent, the fact being that he wanted the ordinance repealed , and to this end laid a deep plot—first to render it unpopular, and then by a series of mock prosecutions to make it seem unworkable, and so to secure his end. This was admitted in the Council, after the proceedings were over, when His Honor was pleased to inform the Council that the attorney for the defence was all along acquainted with the true state of the case, but declined to co-operate with him, and he endeavored to throw the odium of the failures of the prosecution, in case after case, on the shoulders of the attorney, Mr. D. Taylor, who had its conduct. A letter published about this time, March 9th, 1801, from Mr. Allen, was called forth by His Honor’s admission in Council, and will throw nearly all the light on the sham trials that can be desired, and as the statement in it that Mr. T. H. Fitzgerald had declared to him, Mr. Allen, that his real motive in these proceedings was to get the ordinance declared invalid, that “ you and I may avail ourselves of its invalidity,” has not to our knowledge ever been denied, we may reasonably conclude that it was the truth, especially as reference was made to those sham proceedings afterwards in the House of Representatives, in support of the assertion that the ordinance was impracticable. The following is the letter referred to;— To the Editor of the Ha wire's Bag Herald. Sir, —In justice to a gentleman who has been very unfairly treated, and upon whose professional character an unmerited slur has been cast, permit me to make a few remarks, so that (pending any application for redress to the gentleman by whom the attack was made) his reputation may not suffer in the public estimation. It appears from your last week’s report that Mr. T- 11. Fitzgerald, in the Provincial Council, characterised the proceedings recently taken, by his directions, under the Xativc Land Purchase Ordinance, as “ having been conducted in an impotent manner intending, thereby, to screen his own action, and cast a stigma—a previous slur—upon the capacity of my very worthy friend Mr. 11. Taylor, who had the conduct of those proceedings. Lr. H itching?, who called the prosecutions imbecile, did so in ignorance of the real state of the case ; but Mr. Fitzgerald, conscious as he must have been, that their failui’e was attributable solely to his own undue and impertinent interference, and the improper instructions and restrictions given by himself to Mr. B. Taylor, certainly ought to have the candor (if not the honesty to admit his error) to defend that gentleman from the consequences of such interference, and even though he were desirous of concealing the part lie took in the matter, he was bound to protect and screen the gentleman who did what ho did in obedience to his instructions. Now, Sir, to set the matter at rest, and inform the public where the blame should really rest, allow mo to inform you of the reliable facts connected with the case. When Mr. B. Taylor was first instructed for the prosecution he was furnished with a list of gome thirty names, against whom proceedings were to be taken simultaneouslg. (Docs this bear out Mr. F’s assertion that his object was merely to try the question ? for that one summons would have sufficed.) Mr. Taylor, however, declined to summon all those gentlemen at once, and requested permission to go inland and make the usual inquiries, and examine the proposed witnesses : a reasonable and necessary course, which nevertheless was prohibited, and for this reason, forsooth, that Mr. F. had then got all the cases cut, dried, and prepared hg himself. Mr. Taylor properly objected to such a state of things : his objections were overruled by the Superintendent, who placed written instructions in the Provincial Solicitor’s hands, and even the information was drawn out by his Honor. Mr. Taylor had no opportunity of examining the witnesses, no time to supply any deficiencies in their evidence, and though he repeatedly requested an interview with his amateur leader, ho was admitted to that gracious presence only on one occasion, and then too late ! Mr. Taylor again and again took exception to the course pursued—advised a totally different procedure, and warned Mr Fitz Gerald that the

failures did not rest with him. Mr. F. never once complained to Mr. Taylor, but throughout the matter expressed himself satisfied with his conduct Summons after summons broke down, and his Honor knew the reason whg : it was that which he liimself has truly assigned— because iheg were im'poieut/g conducted ; not, however, by Mr. Taylor, ! but bg himself! Because he gratuitously stepped :ont of the sphere of his office and conducted a •matter which, however clever he *iay be, was a little too difficult for him .• because he not only declined, but acted counter to the opinion of the Provincial Solicitor: and because, having the control of the public purse, expense was of no moment to him. And all this was done, I say, not for the public benefit or from any feeling of necessity, but in opposition to the loudly expressed and general opinion, in the hope that on appeal the Ordinance would be declared invalid ; and as' he himself informed me, that “ you and I may avail ourselves of its invalidity.” I then told him that I for one had no intention of embai’king upon the business of a grazier! The settlement ultimately effected/J'/ which the Province bears the whole costs of both sides to the appeal, was also negociated bv the Superintendent.

Had the cases been left from the beginning to Mr. Taylor, no doubt a conviction would have been obtained in the first case, and a very considerable expense have been avoided. How Mr. Fitz Gerald could be rash or conceited enough to dictate to an experienced lawyer is inconceivable. He admits Mr. Taylor to be a competent person, because be appointed him to undertake a thankless task, unremunerative in itself, and very prejudicial to his professional interests in its consequences. Had Mr. Taylor been a man of less integrity or capacity, lie might have gone on with endless summonses on the Superintendent’s plan, without ever obtaining a conviction—much to his own pecuniary benefit; but impatiently discarding bis tethering instructions, he at length assumed the entire conduct of the matter, and obtained a conviction in the verg next case ! The public, Sir, can judge whether a surveyor by education, a millowncr by trade, is likely" to make a good amateur attorney, or bo able to draw a proper information (a little matter which many professed lawyers would find somewhat difficult.) Perhaps Mr. Fitzgerald never heard of the adage, “Hesufor ultra crepidain /” perhaps he is not aware of its import. If the public want a survey made they will not apply to me, I know nothing about it, and if they want an information drawn let them prohibit Mr. Fitzgerald from preparing itthey will find .it much cheaper in the end to employ an attorney. Harlequin is an amusing person when be is expert in his antics;, but the Superintendent ought to have acquired bis part more thoroughly before volunteering a ridiculous exhibition of himself. In fine, when his conceit or contempt of others has led him into an error, let him have the candor to own it ; let him not in any event allow an innocent and an able man to bear the brunt of his shortcomings ; let him not stand by and listen to an attack upon bis wrongly accused officer; and, above all, let him not join in the attack, and meanly cover his own failures by transferring them to the professiouul gentleman, whose only fault was, that he trusted too confidingly to the Superintendent.

I am, Sir, Yours truly,

CHARLES ALLEY.

Napier, Feb. 19, 1801. ’ [Before inserting the above we apprised the Writer that upon examination, wc believed the word “ unfortunate” to have been applied to the proceedings in question, and not “ impotent,” as reported. Mr. Allen, however, considered that this error on onr part called for no alteration in the spirit of his communication.—Ed.] Perhaps a more glaring instance of recklessness in squandering the Provincial funds could hardly be found. 'Wc cannot see that the Council could do otherwise than allow Morrison his expenses, seeing that ho was made the scapegoat of the rich law-defying runholders ; hut it caused the whole burden of the proceedings, pro and con, reckless summonses and “ impotently” (or unfortunately) conducted prosecutions, to he thrown on the revenue, and all under the specious cloak of patriotism.

It is extremely probable that the deeplaid and too successful scheme of his late Honor was well known and understood by some of his friends, and that |)reparations for leasing and occupancy were extensively carried on during its progress ; in fact, there Avere some Avho early had their suspicions aroused (ourselves amongst the number) as to the real state of the case, and a reference to the published correspondence in the Herald will slioav that avg were not singular. Under date Feh. 3, 1861, avg find the following from “ A Saxon,” —

“Our Provincial Government have hitherto been blamed for looking out for No. 1 first, the public after ; hut on this occasion they have somewhat incautiously risked both places and salaries for the public Avelfare, unless, indeed, the attempt is a jiere sham, intended to break down, aud so demonstrate (?) that the Hav cannot be upheld.”

And the rush to obtain the lands of the Maories as soon as the suspension of the ordinance was known, sLoavs lioav many Averc ready to take advantage of it. Indeed, in

Council on the 13th February, uuriug the

debate on Mr. Fitzgerald’s motion that the costs of Morrison's appeal to the Supreme Court should he borne by the Province, Mr. Tucker informed the house that already they had heard of persons making arrangements by anticipation for the occupancy of Native lands ; and long before any properly concocted scheme could be assented/to by the General Assembly, the best of the lands of the Province would be in private hands, as of course they speedily were ; for in the same paper, under date 10th May, we find the following paragraph : “ e have to note a rise in the value of sheep, consequent on the great extent of grazing country recently leased from the Natives : many oi these runs are in consequence but imperfectly stocked. The increase in the value of sheep is nominally 4s. per head, but in point of tact the supply is wholly inadequate to the demand.” Our contemporary, in a late leader, endeavors to excuse the Natives, acknowledges they have grievances, and blames those of the ruuholders “ who keep cattle for the express purpose of grazing on Maori land {rather a curious “ purpose ” by the way], and that Mr. Shirley" s is the latest case of the kind.” Now, we are not going to defend Mr. S. more than others, but that those who refuse to pay Natives rent for their lands are more to blame than those who lease them we deny. That they are morally worse than the others we must admit, but, as does often occur in other cases, not in the effect of their conduct on the community, for, if the demands of the Maories had been uniformly resisted, they would doubtless have alienated their lands long since ; but finding them a source of revenue, of course it is their interest (and they are not slow to perceive it) to retain them.

Again, our worthy contemporary, tells us that “he believes the Natives would have been satisfied if they could have obtained reasonable redress in our Courts.'"’ And can they not J . A\ lioever heard that justice was not done for a Maori whenever he has applied for it, and in the very question under consideration their claim for trespass lias been allowed, as witness the case of Karailiana v. Ahum, where the Maori's claim fur trespass was granted, though not in full.