HOW LONG HALT YE BETWEEN TWO OPINIONS ?

Hawke's Bay Times, Volume II, Issue 65, 25 September 1862, Page 5 (Supplement)

HOW LONG HALT YE BETWEEN TWO OPINIONS ?

• To the Editor of the Hawke's Bay Times. Sir,—These words, addressed by. the inspired man of old to his countrymen, appear equally applicable to us at the present day, in considering several important public questions that have been dealt with lately by tiie press, the government, and our colonial parliament. First, the great question of the day, are the New Zealanders British subjects, or are they independent ? They must be one or the other. From the amount of money voted for “ native purposes,” (salaries and pensions,) and the time devoted to native affairs and native speeches in the General Assembly, we might be led to imagine that this question ought to be answered in the affirmative ; but when we take into account the “diplomatic lelations” existing between the native and the foreigner, and the fact that our Government dare not attempt to enforce our laws against either the New Zealanders as a body, or even against any one individual New Zealander, “unless with, consent of his countrymen,” we are forced to accept the only alternative, and admit that they are not, and never were, subjects to the British Crown. To take another view of the case, we might say, if they are British subjects, why are they not made to submit to British and colonial law, in cases where they violate it ? Robbery, arson, assault, attempt to murder, murder,—to say nothing of “ bearing arms against Her Majesty's forces,” and killing Her Majesty’s subjects in war,—all these, and more, have been done, and no law has interposed, except the law of the strong arm ! We colonists, in this North Island at. any rate, know that practically the New Zealanders are as independent of Britain as is the Sultan of Persia ! On the other hand, if they are independent, why is so much time spent, so much hard English cash lavished, for the benefit, real or supposed, of the Maori race. Why are so many tools employed to do the dirty work of the Government, to bribe natives to let us alone ; to bully some settlers into submission to native thraldom, to coax others to do the same ; to bribe some to break the law of the colony, to amerce others for refusing to break it ? If they are independent, ami we all know that they are, why are they not allowed to bear the expense of their own government, rather than have the funds provided out of our pockets ? Why are not they, as a body politic, held responsible for the “good conduct” of the individual members of which it is composed ? Why are not arrangements made for the extradition of criminals, or atonement for offences committed ? Why are clothing, food, grass seeus, mills, and other good things of this world all provided by the colonists for the advantage of the aboriginal ? Last, though perhaps not least, why are not the Clarks, Coopers, Russells senior and junior, anil the rest of the fraternity, all paid from the exchequer of His Cannibal Majesty King Potat.au, instead of that of Victoria's colonian subjects ? Again, on another important question the inspired words are applicable. Either the New Zealanders are bound equally with ourselves by the Treaty of Waitangi, or it is “ no bond” to either party. Its provisions have been rigidly kept by Britain's representatives, and as generally disregarded by the New Zealander. In some cases the latter have openly repudiated the Treaty in toto. Is it a reality, or is it a nullity ? If it is a fact, why are not the terms insisted on ? If it is a myth, why are we supposed to be bound by its terms ? Why are our rights under it abandoned, while the natives are allowed all the benefits, and more than all the benefits, it promised them ? Another question arises out of the last, either the New Zealander's own the country, and we are but dwellers on sufferance, or their title is that derived from the Treaty they repudiate, a conditional sort of ownership, limited to a right of peaceable occupation, but occupation only. No title whatever was given by the Treaty to the “ waste land,” but now a Crown title is to be given, at the expense and risk of tire colonists, for Governor Grey has evidently got to saddle on the colonists all the cost of manaErinu our independent neighbours, even to the length of surveying their lands, and preparing titles for them. If the Selwyn theory, that the natives are the owners of the island, and we but improvers of the estate for their benefit, is correct, and it must be correct, seeing Sir George Grey, his ministers, and a majority of the members of the General Assembly, including the two members for Hawke’s Bay, all coincide with the Bishop on the subject; then many of us were led here by misrepresentations, by falsehoods; by delusion,

through the concealment of this important [ fact for so many years. More than that, we 1 have been allowed to enter into engagements, and to incur heavy debts, on the supposition I that we could raise interest and principal by I means of the public land, to improve which j we have gone into debt ; now it appears we : have been led astray, and must find some ! other method of raising the wind. 1 Again, the words quoted are equally ap- J propriate in considering the relative positions | of the British empire, and that part of New Zealand held by the whites. Are we, as we believe we are, entitled to the protection of British law ? If so, how is it that the first principles of equity are openly violated by our rulers, in cases where aboriginals are concerned ? How is it that a “ responsible'’ servant of Governor Grey makes arrangements for the hearing of a particular case, at a particular and out of the way place, and actually appoints the individuals who are to sit and adjudicate, having first impressed on them the necessity of adopting his view of the case, and by inference we may suppose insured the verdict he wished ; and to crown ail, and to make doubly sure, actually appoints some of the litigants on one side, out of compliment only, to sit and decide their own cause ? (How is it that the litigants opposing were not shewn the same courtesy ?) How is it that the statute law of the colony is openly violated by those who are entrusted with carrying the law into effect ? How is it that a law-breaker is punished by being appointed to one of the highest offices in the gift of the Governor of the colony ? How is it that, whereas justice is said to be blind, and supposed to be impartial, a high official can hold over the heads of the settlers a twoedged sword, and say to them, if you occupy Maori land on rent, I can fine you under the Land Purchase Oi’diuance ; if you refuse to pay rent to a Maori when I desire you, I can have you fined for trespass ? If you will not break the law when I desire you, I will make it worse for you ! Yours, &c,, A Saxon. Ahuriri, 12th Sept. 1832. P.S.—Since the above was written we have have had another proof, if proof were needed, of the independence of the New Zealanders. I allude to the unfortunate wreck of the Lord JVorsley steamer, and the conduct of the natives on that occasion. They long ago gave notice that they had put up gates to levy toll on Victoria's subjects who ventured to enter their territory, and in some cases actually prohibited anything foreign, i.e., British, passing through. All this was known to the Government, and they have by their conduct acquiesced, or at least appeared to acquiesce, in the arrangement. The sequel now is before us ; the shipwrecked people are compelled to pay toll for leaving the Maori territory, and their countrymen fifty miles distant are prohibited going or sending to their relief, under penalty of death ! This is another nut for Exeter Hall eloquence to comment on ! Will not this expose the real state of affairs to our countrymen at home, deceived as they are by garbled official reports, and political pamphlets by Fox, Hadfield, & Co. ? Sept. 22nd, 1832.