THE ORUOA DOWNS BLOCK DISPUTE.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 5034, 12 May 1877, Page 3

THE ORUOA DOWNS BLOCK DISPUTE.

TO THE EDITOR OP THE NEW ZEALAND TIMES. Sir, —Many of your readers will be glad to learn that all disputes between the Government and the Maori non-sellers of the Kangi-tikei-Manawatu Block have been at length terminated. It has frequently been asserted more or less publicly and authoritately that these disputes have been protracted by the Maoris constantly bringingforward new claims. It has also been said that the sum of £4500, paid three days ago by the present Government in full and final satisfaction of all claims, is a great deal more than the non-sellers were entitled to. May I ask you to publish the following letter, which will, I think, be sufficient to show that the non-sellers never made any new claim, and that they were fully entitled to the money which has been now paid to them.—l am, &c., A. McDonald. “The Hon. Donald McLean, Native and Defence Minister.—Sir, —l do myself the honor of addressing to you the following statement of the views of ray clients in reference to their claims in the Rangitikei-Manawatn Block. In order to make my statement intelligible, it is necessary for me to advert to the position of the Manawatu dispute, when, at the solicitation of my clients, you visited them in December last. At that time there were three distinct classes of native malcontents. Ist. Owners who upon the sale of their interests had been promised, but had not obtained, adequate reserves for their maintenance. 2nd. Owners who had not alienated their interests, and who were dissatisfied with the quantity and position of the shares awarded to them out of the general estate. 3rd. Residents of from twenty to twenty-five years standing, whose claims had either been disallowed by the Native Lands Court, or had not been investigated at all. With the first of these sections of malcontents you dealt, as I respectfully think, not more liberally than justly, making for them such reserves as the promises of the Land Purchase Commissioner and the circumstances of [each particular case seemed to require, and leaving Mr. Kemp to carry your arrangements into effect. But the position of the second class of malcontents was wholly different. Their title as part owners was admitted ; they had not sold their interests ; they were in

possession ; and they had appealed against a decision of the Native Lands Court which purported to define their interests in the general estate. Whether or not the decision of the Native Lands Court would be ultimately sustained or quashed was, of course, a matter of opinion ; but it was obvious that this class of malcontents could not be legally or rightfully dispossessed except by force, or by a tedious and expensive course of litigation. Under these circumstances, I submitted to you the following proposals, with a view to the immediate and final settlement of their claims. Ist. That they should receive Crown grants for a fair proportion of the general estate, such proportion to be based on the acreage of the block and the number of owners as ascertained by the Native Lands Court. 2nd. That they should receive some allowance in the shape of ‘costs’ in the long and expensive proceedings forced upon them by the action of the Land Purchase Commissioner. These proposals, I was led to believe, were considered by you fair and reasonable ; but in the interests of peace, and with a view to assist in making provision for the large number of residents whose claims being disallowed by the Native Lands Court had no other means of living, my clients, under your mediation, agreed to accept a very much less proportion of the general estate than that to which their number entitled them ; and I further agreed on their- behalf to leave the question of ‘ costs’ to be determined after provision had been made as above for the disallowed hapus. Such being, as I and my clients understood, the solution of the Manawatu dispute to which you and they agreed, the following figures will show the present position of the question : Acres. Area of the Rangitikei-Manawatu Block .. 240,000 Deduct Himatungi Block and Sandhills .. 30,000 210,000 Number of owners as ascertained by Native Lands Court .. .. 060 Acres per soul 323 Number of non-sellers .. .. 03 Acres to which they were entitled at 1 he above rate .. .. .. •• 20,349 Awards of Native Lands Court to 03 Acres. non-sellers .. - - •• -• 0200 Awards of Mr. McLean .. .. 2500 Awards of Mr. Kemp 60 11,599 “ Balance of non-sellers' shares of general estate, 11,599 acres, available for payment of ‘ costs,* surveys, and contribution towards making provision for disallowed hapus. “ With respect to this large balance left at your disposal for the purposes indicated, I may observe that my clients did not and do not suppose that it it is your intention to charge it with the entire quantity of land which may be awarded for the maintenance of the disallowed hapus ; but upon this point they are willing to abide in a great measure by any arrangements you may make in the matter. Their object now in sending mo to wait upon you is that as various and contradictory orders and instructions have been received by the surveyors employed in laying off the reserves and awards, whereby much delay and additional expense has been incurred, such orders may now be

J sent as will ensure the speedy and final completion of your arrangements with my clients, and with the other sections of natives interested.—l have, &c., “ A. McDonald, Agent. “ Wellington, July 23, 1871.” The above letter was written by me at Wellington from memory ; but on my return home it appeared, by reference to documents, that I had not given exactly correct figures. Thus the number of owners actually agreed to by Mr. McLean was 700, not 650, and the number of non-sellers was sixty-two instead of sixty-three. Consequently the balance of land left by me in the Native Minister's hands for the purposes indicated was somewhat less thau I had stated. The following are the correct figures:—2lo,ooo acres -r 700 owners = 300 acres each x 62 non-sellers = 18,600 acres remains a balance of 9850 acres to be accounted for. Now this balance of 9850 acres has from the date of the above letter until the recent final settlement formed the bone of contention between my clients and the Government. Neither by themselves, nor by me on their behalf, has their been any demand or claim whatever made upon the Government, except for an account of what the Native Minister had done with the above balance of land. In each successive year, as something on account was doled out to my clients, it was said that there had been a settlement; but that I was constantly bringing forward new claims. Well, the account has been at last closed, thus;— Total area to which ray clients were entitled 18,000 acres Awarded in and previous to 1871 8750 acres Cash in 1872, £3OOO = .. 3000 „ Reserves from 1872 to 1870 .. SSI ~ Cash Ist May, 1877. £ISOO = 4600 ~ Contribution towards maintenance of disallowed hapus 1709 „ ■ You see, therefore (Ist), that I have not claimed anything for my clients beyond what I had claimed in 1871 ; and (2nd) that the present Government have not paid more than my clients were entitled to ; and (3rd) that my clients have faithfully adhered to their promise to the late Sir Donald McLean by allowing a most liberal share of their land to be awarded by him to hapus for whose support they were in no way responsible.—l am, &c., A. McDonald. Awahuri, May 10, 1877.