THE Kawhia Settler. FRIDAY, MARCH 15, 1907, NATIVE TOWNSHIPS.

Kawhia Settler and Raglan Advertiser, Volume IV, Issue 301, 15 March 1907, Page 2

THE Kawhia Settler. FRIDAY, MARCH 15, 1907, NATIVE TOWNSHIPS.

All who have the interest of Kawhia at heart, more particularly of Kawhia townihip, yiew with concern the drawi back to progress and settlement the j two native townships, viz., Te Puru and Karewa,. arc preying themselves to be. These two places now come ; wi ; bin tb® boundaries controlled by i the new Kawhia Town Board. The 1 trouble is fir?t, a question of reading ; j and second, one of title. As to the i reading: to make the matter clear we ■ will go back a bit. Te Puru and Kaj rewa were two paddocks belonging io ! a numl er of local natives, that for grazing or for cultivation wore worth to lease about 10s per acre per annum. A year or two ego the Government had these paddocks surveyed into {-•acre sections, and proclaimed townships under. “ The Native Townships Act.” The sections \Wro submitted to public c mpetilion at an average upset yearly rental of £l2 per acre per annum, and were nearly all taken up by tL,. |.rlJ; ■_ who it may he said had not tiu.n any f xp'>ri »i>co <>i lhe blighting jLflucnro-i of a holding under a native towmshin Imro. N >w, before a Euro- ; Lerncn i’vif.Q ..;m t .. up a block of ’

land and sell sections as township sec- - tions, he must first form and grade the roads passing through such proposed township, and the work must be done io the satisfaction of the County h Engineer. Thia very fair and proper legulation is overridden by tbe Government in rhe case of native townships—the burden of making roads is thrown on the ratepayers, whilsr (as in Te Puru) the natives without an effort dan eit tight and draw the difference in rental, between lOj and €l2 vnr acre, the latter sum being iLo vJ.u bid for tbe land by tboir atone iim» unwise and now unfortunate tenants the roading in Te Puru will mean h very heavy expenditure ; if the whole sum proposed to be borrowed by tbe County Council for the Kawhia Riding were spent there it would bo insufficient to do what is necessary—hardly give access to it—yet to do justice to Kawhia the work must some day be done, and apparently out of rates. As to tbe title: We do not wish to argue tbe general principles involved in j freehold v. leasehold—but we take up i thio stand, that where a people break up new country, and occupy it, and j ihere build uyo their Lome —that bom-?, that’ ocoopano'y, fbai noW codntry should be free of any ground landlord , —the land should become the property of the occupier, and be should bold it 1 under all tbe rights and privileges that j g jwith what we know as the ‘freehold.’ : If the advocates of leasehold like to 1 come along and decide to take up such new country under their favourite form of tenure they should be allowed tbe privilege. As to Te Puru, tbe natives ?

are willing to sell at a reasonable price and the public willing to buy at a fair price, but the Government stands between. The interference is supposed to be in the interests of the natives. These interests can quite as well be protected if the land were sold for its fair money yalue through fhe Government and the interest accruing paid the natives without deduction, until such time [they ?can show they are fit and capable to handle the capital. This is a matter that comes within the ecope of our local bodies, and we look particularly to the Kawhia Town Board to do its utmost to get the Government to (acquire these native blocks, and let the public have the sections under a form of title that will encourage settlement—in the interest of the individual and the district let us all struggle to keep our homes free of tbe curse of ground landlords.