Untitled

Hawke's Bay Times, Volume II, Issue 52, 26 June 1862, Page 5 (Supplement)

To the\Editor of the Hawke's Bay Times.

Sir, —The more I see and hear of the subject of the Native Land Purchase Ordinance, the more I ain bewildered as to the causes of its first appearance there, and of its periodical appearance before the public in the way of a prosecution in a court of law (or justice ?). Is it possible, amongst men who are found to boast that “ Britons never will be slaves,” that this Ordinance is kept up by successive Governors and Governments (like the rod of the old-fashioned schools of our boyhood, in ierronmj, to procure our support to that political party that may be temporarily in power ? Or worse, is it only applied on certain occasions from motives of private spite or party malice? If neither of these suppositions be true, why, in the name of all that is just and pure is not this Ordinance either repealed or enforced against aU its violators ? Since hearing the case of Mr. Colenso yesterdoy, my mind has reverted to other cases that have been brought before our courts on the same subject, and a bare reference to such will show that different causes have been in operation at different times for endeavoring to enforce the law, though at, times the uninitiated would be puzzled to discover any cause whatever. “ Poor Bob’s,” as far as I remember,, was the first case of the kind tried at Napier, and, to the general public, it has always seemed a mystery as to why he should have been selected as the scape-goat of the flock, but if we recollect that our friend Tommy Fitz had a store at Pa , and a well known J. P. had another at what is now Clive (then Native land), likewise that Chambers (as I believe) then as now, occupied Native land near the big bush, and that all these, beside many others, were permitted to hold their occupations undisturbed when “ Bob” was driven off, we may well enquire—'“ How was this ?” About this time, too, the worthy (?) Commissioner, G. S. Cooper allowed the great Mr. T. Tanrier to occupy the North Ruataniwha but, (according to a statement in the Herald , which Mr. Cooper has never yet denied) would not permit Mr. Harding (who, I have heard, is a political opponent of the Fox party) to place his sheep on the hills at Tikokino. Could such as this proceed from private feeling, or was it to please a Fox’s friends ? The next we hear of the Ordinance was an order to all and sundry sawyers and splitters to leave the native bush land, but, as shortly afterwards it was found that Mr. Commissioner and his clique wanted timber and preferred buying that of the native’s to using their own, and, as it was desired that Mr. Commissioner’s dear friend Tuke should be quietly allowed to settle on some of the best land in the Province, the said splitters and sawyers were permitted to return to the bush once more. After tins came the “ tug of

war’ 1 when “ Governor Thomas” attempted to enforce the law, or, in other words to bring it into disrepute. We all know the result of this, at least, so far as the lawyers hills went whirl) we have had to pay out of the provincial chest. And now the greatest.case of all is brought before us—that of Mr. Golenso, in the Resident Magistrate’s Court yesterday, but words are wanting to do justice to this.. Haj I .not certainly known better, but had simply heard that the Commissioner’s name was Russell, I should have supposed, after hearing his decision in the case, that it had been his Lordship of Waipukuraii notoriety, for I should not have supposed it possible to have found one other who-could have given a verdict so contrary to evidence, as was that of yestesday, and, 0 ! ye gods, “ tell it not in Gath, publish it not in the streets of Askelon,” that Commissioner’s own son, if not himself, at the self-same time breaking the law by depasturing some thousands of. sheep on native land; and he to sit there in judgment on his fellow man. Surely this is enough to make our flesh creep, to fill us with contempt for our institutions, and make us all join in praying—“ From such administrators of justice; good Lord deliver us.” Well may the natives hold our courts in contempt, and take time to consider whether they will return to their allegiance to the Queen, or abide by their king. But, Sir, there is another question that demands our immediate attention, and that is —Are we to sit down calmly, and see such a mockery of law and justice, while we have all the power conferred on us by our glorious constitution to bring such a state of tilings to an end ? Are we to allow, by our passive conduct, Messrs, Fox & Clique to bring the same blight over the whole colony, they have brought over Wellington and Napier ; or shall we show that we are in earnest in our resolves to assert our rights as colonists and subjects of the Queen ? One who grieves FOR OUR PRESENT STATE. 14th June, 1862.