The Manawatu Times. SATURDAY, JUNE 30, 1877.

Manawatu Times, Volume II, Issue 73, 30 June 1877, Page 2

The Manawatu Times. SATURDAY, JUNE 30, 1877.

.The Native Land Court' Act, 1877, or properly speaking the new Native Land Bill, is now m circulation for the scrutiny of the members of the House, and for criticism by the Pressprevious to its presentation, to Parliament at the forthcoming ses"Srcm; — --Already— trnrro the VjjrilTClpaT newspapers of the Colony spoken ■ cqricerning this measure,, and m the majority of instances the utterances :of the Press have been unfavorable . : ta its; adoption without considerable emendation. It is of course well known. that Mr- Whitaker, the present Attorney-General, has drafted this Bill, .and a^.Mr Whitaker has earned for himself the character of being, a sharp lawyer and a wily politician— *in fact a man sp clever as not to be above stooping •to sharp practices to gain his ends, be they, of . a private or political nature^-we cdnnotmuch wonder that the measure has-been viewed with distrust, and that the abuses. ; which it seeks to, "perpetuate, even though they be but the reflection of those embodied m former enactments, should be attributed to. the father of the Bill. As we have said the majority of newspapers m the Colony have pronounced very decidedly and m uniayorable terms upon the Bill. The ."New Zealand Herald," which at first hailed this Bill as a good measure, now says "iti.Jias provided for the' speculator, but has omitted to make any pro vision for the settler." The ". .Wairarapa News Letter," will not grant it a single redeeming It says, " it should be thrown out without any attempt at amending it, for its principles are badvf rom beginning to end." JTo come nearer home, our contemporary the " Kahgitikei Advocate," m its issue of the 21st inst. assails the. measure m no very ''measured terms. '* ' Whilst with the arguments advanced by our"cbntemnorary as regards pi"ospeetive /legislation m reference to the lands of; the Colony *we fully agree, we udtice ■'that. the, Hon. W. Fox has pointed put ah error m our contera-/ Vpprary's article upon tiie , subject; namely,: "that the present BUI reverges the ' policy embodied- m the Native Laud Act of 1873." In pointing put; this, error,, the. Hoil gentleirian: has taken, the oppprtunity of ■ giving a surumarizfed history of the laws' bearing upon the matter from; 1862 to the present time, arid- shows that the only reversal to the policy of 187^-contaiiied : in the present Bill isj ( that the power of proclaiming exdepted districts given to the G&y&mtrient by the Act of 1873 is repealed- " As Mr Fox is a politician of lip ihean order, 'and a gentleman "wlio has the interests of --his fellow cbloriists at heart, his opinions carry with them weight^and are deserving of a wide . Me have;;jMch.,pieasiire inappending some of the pertineiit x-

remarks made by the Hon. gentleman m reviewing the subject ; — Previously to 1862, by the 73rd section of the Constitution Act, no private person could purchase land from the natives. The sole power of doing so\was Tested m the Crown. In 1862, by Act of the general Assembly, that restriction was removed, and the power of purchasing direct from the natives thrown open to all the world. The same Acfc created a Native Lands Court for the investigation of nntive title, and the is me of certificates to the native owners, who could then sell- to anyone. This Act was amended m 1865, '66, and '67, as regarded the machinery of the Court and other matters ; but no change was made m the matter of private purchase. In 1873 these Acts were all repealed, and their provisions, by a new Act, consolidated and amended, and, with one exception, the right of privatepurchase was continued as before. This exception was a power given to, the Governor to proclaim districts within -which the Act should not be m operation. In these districts the Court would have no •jurisdiction to investigate native title, and as no certificates could be granted m them, no private, nor it would appear Crown, purchases could be effected therein! The object of the exception was entirely political — to prevent the Government having the responsibility of enforcing the decisions of the Court against rebel or dissentient tribes. Some proclamations have been issued under the Act, chiefly, I believe, about the Thames and other Northern districts ; but whereever they have not, the right of private purchase has continued as before, and evei-ybody knows that such purchases and negotiations have been going on m almost every part of this island since, 1873, and to the present hour. Natives are offering large blocks and- having them surveyed for sale to private purchasers at this moment within ten miles of where I write. Now, the only reversal to the policy of 1873 which I can discern m the intended bill, (a copy of which is before me), is, that the power of proclaiming excepted districts given to the Grovernmenfc by the Act of 1873 is repealed. But the Government is not deprived of the same power as it has had ever since 1862, of going into the market and competing, as it does now, for our " childrens' heritage,". with the private purchaser. The only reversal, or change, of policy 'indicated by the bill is m this one particular of the excepted districts. The rest of the bill is little- else than a consolidation and amendment of the provisions relating to,' the '.machinery, of the Court, the survey of the lands brought before it, and so forth. Provision'is made, as m previous Arts, to prevent private spepulators from attempting to purchase lands for which the G-cyernment is already m negotiation." There is no reference whatever te the con- . fiscated blocks which the G-overnment has hitherto.held, as against private purchasers, to be already its own, under the form of " The New Zealnnd,Settlements Act, 1863 ;" and there is no indictation of any intention to throw.these blocks opento private speculation.-.; . „ . This new Bill, then, concerning which so much fuss has been: made. is, iii point of fact, merely a consolidation of the existing laws concerning the disposal of native lands. We are quite prepared. to admit that the work of consolidating these laws is a useful pne, and may" have entailed a good deal of trouble Vand anxious thought upon' its author ; but still we feel sure that something more than this is required, and it seems to us a pity that an astute politician of Mr;. "Wliitaker's calibre should have spent so much of his valuable time, and energy m the performance of a work which we think many a lawyer's clerk doujd have done equally well. The fact of Mr "Whitaker being.:- engaged on? the work, .excited the expectation/of the people. The thought was^ that : radical changes would he made either for the better or "the: worse, and whilst it' is a matter of thankfulness that no materialr change, f or the wofrse-'has been- made, we think there is -reason/ for regret that this " new enterprise which has taken birth," presents little or nothing m the shape of : amendment upon our existing native land laws. It is unquestionably a, matter upon which public opinion is ; somewhat divided, but it is patent that. the balance of that -opinion is directly- opposed to the continuance of the present' facilities offered to speculators for acquiring from the natives large jblocks of their, land. The system now is certainly not open to the.grdss abuses formerly attaching; to .it, inasmuch as the natives have become wide awake, and will nat part with their land for less than its fair value ; and we recognize the difficulty of imposing restrictions upon natives to - which; Europeans are not liable. If a European possesses a large "block of land he is at liberty to sell to whomsoever he will, and the native might reasonably ask why, after his land " has passed throughthe Court, he should riot be awarded the same privilege ? But here lies the difference — the natives at present possess large and valuable tracts of couutry, which for the most part, after being passed through the -Court,- they are willing to sell to the highest bidder. Europeans as a rule do not possess large blocks, and where they do they are usually not willing to part with them. The native then is willing to sell and the European speculator is eager to buy; but ' for the welfare of the community at large it is necessary, that some limit should be placed upon the extent of land purchased by individuals or companies from natives. We think there could be no reasonable objection to permitting "the

natives to dispose of' small blocks of land of from 500 to 1,000 acres for bona fide settlement — but the allowing of large blocks to pass into the hands of speculators is a mattei' ■which the new Bill should "provide against, and we trust that m its passage through Committee, some clause will be inserted enforcing wholesome restrictions m the direction we have indicated. Should opportunity offer, we purpose entering upon, the subject more fully m a future issue.