King Country Chronicle Wednesday, April 17th, 1912. SPECIAL NATIVE LEGISLATION.

King Country Chronicle, Volume VI, Issue 457, 17 April 1912, Page 5

King Country Chronicle Wednesday, April 17th, 1912. SPECIAL NATIVE LEGISLATION.

ijt «• One of the drawhacks attaching to residence in the King Country, and to the exercising of the ordinary business activities therein, lies in the fact that the average citizen is faced with the existence of special legislation of every description. The average reply to this statement is that the European knew of the special legislation before he came, and should be content to subscribe thereto. Such a ridiculous argument could be dismissed without comment, but for the fact that people who should know better have developed a habit of using it as a final and unanswerable reason for maintaining the existing state of thmg3. The spirit of progress inherent in our race revolts at such a foolish and pernicious doctrine, and

the utterance of such vapid and in-

consequent nonsense is the strongest gk indictment possible against the cause it is desired to sustain. the fact that people are driven to use such an argument indicates plainly to what lengths they are prepared to go to bolster up a pet idea. In order for a country to be governed, and its affairs administered to the best advantage, the laws of such a country, whether for the control or guidance of the people, must be made general in their application. In the case of New Zeaiand, entrusted with the care of an uncivilised race, special circumstances were naturally recognised. In furtherance of the worthy desire to uplift the Maori race to the plane of civilisation occupied by the most progressive European nation, special legislation in the interests of the natives was deemed necessary. Owing to a variety of circumstances the special legislation was framed to conserve the Maori land interests, and the

operation of the laws was confined to

certain districts, the natives having Ifcgot rid of their lands in all but certain given localities. With the wisdom or expediency of these laws in the

past we are in nowise concerned With the principle or system responsible for the perpetuation of those laws indiscriminately we are vitally and intimately concerned. In pursuance of its worthy desire to bring the Maori to a state of high civilisation the legislature -'mposed galling and shackling restrictions upon his liberty, ostensibly with the object of providing sufficient land for the maintenance of some future generation of Maoris. Such action was only permisaable in view of the fact that it was useless endeavouring to uplift the older Maoris, and that prompt and effective measures were adopted for educating the younger generation in all respects, in order to fit him to take his place side by side with the corresponding European generation. The experience of generation after generation of Maoris, forced to live under drastic restricions, and debarred from employing their talents and energies in like manner to their European neighbours was hardly calculated to fit them for the responsibilities and duties of citizenship in a progressive, country. Still, we have people advocating the indefinite continuance of such a deplorable custom. No race on earth could be made a competent and responsible people by such methods. The buTtding up of character; the encouragement of energy and industry , the incentive to exercise initiative and take responsibility which marks the self reliant nature. These, surely, are more potent factors in the advancement of a race than the conserving of a few acres of land for a future generation, which crude, and shortsighted methods will mould into something a degree les3 capable than its predecesssor. Undoubtedly ths method originally adopted, and clung to with a blind pertinacity, point inexorably to such a conclusion. Meanwhile the country suffers. Settlement is checked, and the activities of European and Maori alike are hampered by special legislation which has failed to achieve the object for which it was passed. One of the most objectionable features in connection with the special legislation is the lack of finality attaching thereto. In the ease of native township sections provision is made whereby the freehold of any section may be obtained from the owner. The power of veto rests with the board which may refuse or confirm any application as it think 3 fit. Notwithstanding that the owner of a section may agree to ; S ell, and that all regulations in respect to valuation may have been complied with, the board in its discretion may veto any transaction. The exer- • cise of this arbitrary power must in-

■evitably cause friction. The refusal to-cot>firm a bargain which has been «r '"♦ agreed to, and for which market Value is being obtained on both sides because the board assumes it to be '"not in the interests of the natives," is the assumption by the board of too great a responsibility. Such power

is not vested in thß board in connec-

tion with rural native lands, where

the existence of cprtain conditions, and the performance of certain acts, entitle a person to have Ma application confirmed, thereby giving finally to a transaction, or the right of appeal to a higher tribunal. In the case of township sections finality is equally desirable seeing that an infinitely greater number of people will be affected. Even if the board were made to fix the valuation at which a town section could be purchased there would be a possibility of finality. However, seeing that a Government

valuation is necessary in any case, this seems an unnecessary obligation. In another column is published a letter from the Under-Secretary fur Native Affairs to the Te Kuiti Chamber of Commerce in reference to the matter. With the personal aspect of the question we have no concern. However,

in fairness to the parties mentioned, it may be stated that the transactions referred to were submitted in response to the repeated charge that concrete cases had not been brought under the notice of the authorities. Individual cases mu3t stand on their own merits, and whatever may be the merits of the cases referred to, the principle at stake is totally unaffected thereby. To be effective in the interests of the Dominion as a whole, and clearly in the interests of the natives, it is imperative that finality shall be attainable by constitutional methods in all native transactions. Laws passed by Parliament are the detailed enunciation of certain general principles, affirmed by the people for the good of the people. The passing of certain laws, and the retaining of the power of veto has been a favourite practice of those in charge of native affairs in the past. Such a system, however excusable as a temporary expedient in extraordinary eases, is obviously dangerous, and in direct opposition to democratic ideals. By such methods has the attainment of finality been indefinitely delayed. The time has arrived for a searching review of the position in respect to native townships, and it is to be hoped the question will be dealt with by all concerned in a manner befitting the importance of the subject. In fairness to the Maori, the European, and to the Dominion in general, a cryptic term such a3 " the interests of the native owners" should not be the medium for obstructing or delaying progress, and the sooner finality is set to special, or restrictive legislation in the matter, tne better for all concerned.