CORRESPONDENCE.

Hawke's Bay Times, Volume II, Issue 71, 6 November 1862, Page 3

CORRESPONDENCE.

To the Editor rf the Haivhe's Bay Times. Sir, —Although I have commented at some length on the “ policy, 5 ’ I will venture to point out another serious flaw in it. It treats our opponents better than our friends. This is unavoidable under a system which yields most when hardest pushed. A might ask an additional hundred for land sold years ago, and be denied, provided ho was quiet and civil. B makes the same request, but know s quietness is not the way to obtain it. so lie talks lug, ami, following the plan pursued in the parable of the unjust judge, denial only increases his importunity ; a few significant threats are next called into use, and flavoured by some mysterious hints that you must first kill the man, and then seize his property ; perseverance in this course will ensure success. A last resort is to go and commence building a war pa, and then, if not before, the pakeha must yield, to prove that he is desirous to bo at peace. But in the crowning act of the policy—the Native Lauds Bill—the comparative injustice with

which we treat our friends is most glaring. Let C represent a tribe who welcomed the pakeha, and gave (for a reasonable consideration) land for colonization. D is the adjoining tribe, who have looked on the pakeha as a taonga when few in number, but as an intruder when increasing ; D withheld the land, lest the pakeha should become too many and too strong for them. C have improved much in circumstances, have still land enough for their own use, but have no spare millions of waste acres. On the other hand, the territory claimed hy D has also become valuable from its proximity to the pakeha. By this Bill, wealth beyond computation is conferred, in the shape of a marketable title to the soil, on D. Had C pursued tlie same policy as D, the land would be equally unprofitable. Hence C have assisted the pakeha to enrich D. What advantage do we oiler to C for their friendship ? Again, a great deal has been said about Native distrust for the Government, and the Land Bill is offered as a cure-all. What are the facts ? Government have hitherto impressed on the natives the fact that the land is-of no value when laying waste, and a very small sum is all the natives are entitled to expect for it, seeing whatever value it acquires is conferred by the presence and colonization of the pakeha. This is true ; but now they are told, we have only humbugged you out of your 'rights, you are entitled to all the improved price hitherto claimed for the pakeha, in fact yours is all that the land will fetch in an open market ! Is this the way to induce the Natives to place faith iti the words of a Government officer, or to rely on the justice of the Government ? Perhaps some of the “ martyrs to the public weal’’ who are fattening on the system, will answer this question. Yours, ttc., October 18th, 1802. A Saxon.