THE HAWKE’S BAY TIMES. NAPIER, THURSDAY, JULY 3, 1862.

Hawke's Bay Times, Volume II, Issue 53, 3 July 1862, Page 2

THE HAWKE’S BAY TIMES. NAPIER, THURSDAY, JULY 3, 1862.

“ I f any person shall after the passing of this Ordinance purchase or by writing or otherwise agree to purchase any estate or interest in Land front any person of the native race, or shall by writing or otherwise agree with any such person for the purchase of the right of cutting timber or other trees, or of the right of mining, or OF TUB IIIG (IT OF PASTCFIIAGE, UR THE USE OB occupation of XAXn,” he “shall be liable to forfeit and pay any sum not less than £3 nor more than £ 10 11 , to bo recovered in a summary way.”—An live Laval Lurchase Orduicuice clause 1. “ I have told him I would write to you recommending that you should arrange with (hem specially for future payment.”— The Civil Cor.uuisJoner. A prosecution and conviction, as our readers are aware, lias recently been ellectod in the Civil Commissioner's Court of Napier, under the above clause of the Native Land Purchase Ordinance, against Mr. Colenso, and we have now the painful duty to perform of directing attention to a document (which will he found in another column) which is a copy of a letter from the self-same Civil Commissioner before whom the case against Mr. Colenso Avas heard, to one of the country settlors (Mr. Atkinson), advising him to violate the Ordinance “ by entering into arrangements with persons of the native race for the right of pasturage.” It is really almost beyond belief that any one could he guilty of such a course of conduct, for the Civil Commissioner must have well known, when tendering this piece of sapient advice, that if it was followed, Mr. Atkinson would be laying himself open to an information and conviction under the Ordinance, which we are informed by proclamation, and indeed have had ocular demonstration of the fact, “ will be enforced in such cases as are found necessary.” And further, this Civil Commissioner, when hearing the case against Mr. Colenso, and indeed convicting him of a breach of the provisions of the Ordinance in spile of evidence to the contrary, was Avell aware of having written the letter referred to (though perhaps it did not occur to him that it would be made public) but a few short days before. But what shall we say of the political state of a community, situated between two laws as opposed in their provisions as is the Native Land Purchase Ordinance and the Cattle Trespass Ordinance as it is expounded by the authority of the Fox Government, which we have seen (not long ago) brought to bear on certain ol our neighbours, and which the Civil Commissioner threatens to enforce against Mr. Atkinson if lie does not proceed to violate the other ? Or what shall we say of that interpretation of one law that so stretches the meaning of its provisions as

to enable a magistrate to inflict a penalty on a British subject fur refusing or declining to break another Ordinance ? We have no hesitation in afhrming that such interpretation is talse and scandalous, and we think a critical examination of the only clause of the act that it is pretended can be made to a PPty t 0 such cases will shew this to be the case. There cannot be the least doubt that the land referred to in the Ordinance “on which cattle may trespass,” &c., is land held under Grant from the Crown, and only such, if we except actually occupied native lands. Nor is there any reason to believe that there existed in the minds of those who framed it any idea of its being made to apply to the unalienated wastes of the colony ; and this is amply borne out by the uniform action of every magistrate in the colony, from the time of the passing of the law, until it was found convenient by the Fox party to give instructions to the contrary ; and only then was it discovered that the whole magisterial body of the colony had from the first been laboring under a strong delusion in supposing that the unoccupied, unulienated lands were not included in the intentions of the Act. With regard to lands in actual occupation by the £ native race, those have always been regarded by the magistrates as the property of the occupier, although such may not have been held under the Crown, and the natives have never had cause to complain of backwardness on the part of the magistrates to award them proper damages for actual injuries done to crops or fragile fences by the cattle of a pakeha neighbor ; but the case of the unoccupied wastes is manifestly very different from this. Now, we very readily admit that a nativepampering Government lias it in its power to include such lands in the Ordinance by special enactment, as it can give them the fee-simple and Crown Grant for such, if it is disposed to do so, notwithstanding the reasonable complaints of the licensed nmholdcr, who may olton, irom the nature of the country, find it a matter of impossibility to fulfil its provisions ; but we strongly deny that any Government could do this retrospectively arbitrarily—that is without first referring the question to the representatives of the people, and we expect the General Assembly will not fail to investigate the matter. However, we must return to the Civil Commissioner and Ins letter to Mr. Atkinson, as this is a matter of too much importance to he lightly passed over, and in reference to it we would enquire—What is the meaning of all the proclamations that have recently been issued by the Government, warning all persons against making illegal arrangements with the natives in breach of the Ordinance, and threatening enforcement of its provisions, if a Civil Commissioner can give permission, and even recommend, any person to enter into such arrangements—nay more, to threaten them with proceedings before a magistrate, heavier damages, and costs, in case of this recommendation not being complied with ? Taking the Civil Commissioner's letter, with its recommendation and threats, in connection with the recent action taken in his Court, it becomes a matter of the greatest moment to the colonists that they be given to understand how far the powers placed in the hands of the various persons appointed to the office of Civil Commissioner extend. Can these men suspend or enforce a law according to their own good (or had) pleasure ? Are they armed with these two special Ordinances that they may bring either of them to bear on the head of such persons as the Government of the day may direct ? the probability being that if one of them does not apply the other will, and at the same time permit others, whom it does not suit their purpose to offend, to violate both with their gi sanction, and even in accordance with their recommendation.