THE NATIVE LANDS ACT.

Hawke's Bay Times, Volume 6, Issue 290, 20 July 1865, Page 1

THE NATIVE LANDS ACT.

[From the Daily Southern Cross, July o.]

Some days ago we referred to the proclamation in t he Gazettej abolishing the Land Purchase Department of the Native Office, and bringing the Native Lands Act into operation throughout the colony. We pointed out the evils that had grown up with the lands department. To-day we propose to consider the Act, which is mow the law of the colony, in respect to the acquisition of native lands. And at the outset we hi ay remark that the Act is right, in principle though very faulty in detail. The policy'of the law is set forth iu the preamble which, after reciting the main provisions of the Treaty of Waitangi, - goes on to state that “ it would greatly promote the peaceful settlement of the colony, and the advancement and civilization of the natives, if their rights to land were ascertained, defined, and declared, and if the ownership ol such lands, when so ascertained, defined, and declared, were assimilated as nearly as possible to the ownership of land according to British law.” The preamble then waives the right of pre-emption of native lands, on the part of the Grown, as secured by treaty. So far as the preamble is concerned, there is, therefore, little to find fault with. It might have been more explicit, but the intention of the framers of the Act is clear, namely, to individualise native title, and render easy of acquisition either by purchase or lease such waste lands as the native owners might be willing to alienate. But. unfortunately, when we come to the details, we discover that the machinery does not produce the contemplated result. The Act does certainly constitute a Court, with power to ascertain and declare, “ according to native custom, who are the proprietors of native lands, and the estate or interest held by them therein,' and to “ grant such proprietors certificates of their title to such land;” but this is clogged by conditions which render it almost impossible for a European to acquire land in compliance with the law. Thus, it is provided that “ no certificate shall be issued until a survey of the lands to be therein described shall have been made by a surveyor licensed by the Governor, and the boundaries of such lands distinctly marked out on the ground. Now although this provision might appear reasonable enough in itself, when it is taken in connection with clause SO it will be found to be all but prohibitory, to purchase or lease by' respectable individuals, and open the door to an unlimited amount of fraud. By clause 30 it is provided that “every contract, promise, or engagement for the purchase, or lease, or occupation, or of any interest therein, made prior to the issue of a certificate of title under this Act, shall ba

absolutely void, and no action shall be main* tained for the recovery of any moneys or other consideration paid or given thereon.” All who have had dealings with the natives know that they will take no steps of their own accord to have their lands surveyed, and titles ascertained. They have no money to pay the cost of survey; and when they want money they get awould-be purchaser amongst the settlers to have a survey made; and after having put him to great expense and inconvience, they are at liberty to turn round and repudiate their written engagements. The European who made bona fide advances to the natives perhaps, also defraying the cost of survey—may be outbid by another purchaser after issue of the certificate, and he has no redress. The proceedings at the Kaipara Native Lands Court, the other day; furnished three examples of this kind; and in one case only did the European contractor secure the fulfilment of the engagement, although in every instance the agreements had been made with the men whose names appeared in the certificates of ownership to the various blocks. With these risks in view, Europeans will not be willing to make advances for surveys ; and we think it should be provided that in all cases where the ascertained owners repudiate engagement of this kind, undertaken with a view to legitimate pm chase or lease, an action for damages should lie; and wherever it should appear that natives, by pretending to the ownership of land to which they were not entitled under certificate, obtained advances from Europeans for surveys, or deposit on sale, or lease, they should be held liable to a prosecution for obtaining money under false pretences. Care ought to be taken to protect natives from acts of oppression by Europeans, and for this purpose we think the native land purchase agents ought to be duly licensed. In fact, if it is politic to license surveyors under the Act, how much more is it necessary to license only such persons as may be approved of by the authorities, to negotiate the purchase or lease of native lands! We think such appointments would be a sufficient guarantee that the natives would not be imposed upon; and contracts entered into by such licensed agents with the ascertained owners, for the purchase or lease of any given block of land, ought to be recognised by the Court, which would issue the certificate to the parties accordingly. This summary proceeding would effect much good. It would secure the due fulfilment of contracts, and be an inducement to respectable settlers to go into the market for the acquirement of native lands. Another defect of the law appeals to be the delay that mnst necessarily ensue before the title shall have been legally ascertained. As we understand the law, a claim could not be enforced on foot of a certificate of title unless signed by the Governor, and it is optional with the Governor to sign. If the law is to be of an immediate or general use, all this must be changed. There must be as little delay as possible, for the natives will not understand it, and may repudiate everything connected with the matter between the hearing of claims and the approval of the Governor. The machinery of the Act is too complicated. It will no doubt be amended in the coming session, and we hope that these and other points will not be overlooked. The Act does not provide, with sufficient explicitness, for the individualization of native titles; and tins we look upon as a great defect. * * * ■ * * *