Untitled

Lyttelton Times, Volume II, Issue 65, 3 April 1852, Page 7

To the Editor of the Lyttelton Times,

Sir, —The original settler in this colony well knows why a law has been enacted to favour the Maori felon. Many of the Canterbury settlers, and some of its law members, were not aware that such a law existed, but the case of the Maori before the resident-magistrate yesterday will open the eyes of the public to tbe partial and unjust ordinance, and although in this instance the resident-magistrate inflicted the highest fine that that law allows, yet generally the magistrates are as desirous as the law to favour tbe Maori in crime. This has been the partial policy of British magistrates ever since they have exercised authority in New Zealand; and I appeal to public sentiment in this matter, if such a course lias not a direct tendency to increase crime with the Maori community rather than diminish it. Had the authorities in tbe north listened to the representations of tbe settler, and acted with prompt firmness in cases of aggression, and not have been led by parties in misrepresenting Maori feeling and action, it is more than probable that open rebellion would never have occurred.

Allow me to ask, Sir, any experienced settler if he can show just grounds for a partial law, or its administration towards the aborigine in this colony, yet that such is the case none will dispute; only look to the case of the five Europeans sent to Wellington from Pigeon Bay on a charge of pig stealing. The case is briefly stated thus: The Maories in Pigeon Bay stole a boat loaded with timber from the Europeans; the Court at Akaroa fined the Maories £3; the Maories, in retaliation, charged the Europeans with stealing two pigs, and the Court at Akaroa committed the Europeans to Wellington for trial. The Grand Jury ignored tbe bill, and very justly too, as the residents in Pigeon Bay now know that one, if not both the pigs said to be stolen is in possession of the Maories; one Maori, a principal witness in the case, and ordered to attend the Court at Wellington would not go, and he assigned as his reason for not^oing, that "he would not go to Wellington to tell lies," but admitted that he bad done so at Akaroa to please the Maoris with whom he resides at Pigeon Bay. The chief constable at Akaroa has taken a note of the Maori's statement, but whether it has been represented in a proper quarter or not is not known. Now, Sir, I think that the features of this case only is such as ought to render tbe authorities very cautious in receiving Maori evidence; the Maoris are a combined body, having a interest in common not at all favourable to the European ; and it is well known to all the settlers located where the Maoris are the strongest portion of the community, that the settler is actually paying tribute to the Maori, a combination of circumstances renders it so, and the settler will sooner submit to it than vainly seek redress from authorities who shelter the Maori, both by law and power, in all their transactions. No such a law to favour the Maori would exist if the voice of the people had any influence with the executive. It is one of Sir George Grey's despotic acts to curry favour with a influential body of maudlin sympathisers for the ' interesting aborigine,' _a body who, to a great extent, while preying on Christian benevolence from England, have aimed more for their own temporal aggrandizement than the moral advancement of the Maori. This ordinance, enacted by the New Zealand Autocracy, is