THE NATIVE LANDS BILL.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 5166, 12 October 1877, Page 3

THE NATIVE LANDS BILL.

As the rejection of the Native Lands Bill introduced by the Hon. the Attorney-General has been one of the leading points of argument by the Opposition as against the Government, and as the question is one of great interest to the settlers of the North Island and the Maori race, we, with a view to promote discussion of this very important subject, publish the following letter, which appeared iu the New Zealand Herald of the 6th September last : “ Sir, —As the manner iu which native lands are to be hereafter dealt with is now engrossing the attention of the New Zealand Legislature, and the general public of the North Island, it appears to me that those who have been engaged in land purchases, and are acquainted with the working of the Native Lands Act and Courts, ought to give the public the benefit of their experience. With this view, may I request to be allowed to fill a spare column or two of your paper on the question. I hope you will pardon me for commencing at an early period of the history of this country, with the object of showing some of the causes which have led to the present position of affairs. From comparing the traditions of the Maori of Zealand with those of the people of Hawaii, I have arrived at the conclusion that the statement made by the former, that they migrated from Hawaii or Hawaiki, is perfectly correct. This exodus from Hawaii probably took place about seven hundred years ago, as the genealogical tables of some of the tribes indicate an occupation of this country varying from twenty to twenty-four generations (the usual period allowed for a generation is thirty years, which gives the above result). According to some authorities and traditions, the Maoris found this country inhabited; but, as far as my researches have gone, I incline to the contrary opinion, and assume that the Maoris were the original discoverers of these islands, and claim through right of discovery. As the immigrants landed at different points on the coast, and food was plentiful, the tribes did not come into collision for a considerable period; however, as supplies became scarcer and more difficult to obtain, and the population increased, they naturally went farther afield, and quarrels ensued as to the right to catch rats, weka, kiwi, kakapo, and to collect edible berries and fern root. This caused the first difficulties as to boundaries, and the whole country was divided between the large tribes, and subdivided among the hapus or families forming such tribes. It is my opinion that nearly all the wars between the Maoris themselves commenced about two hundred and forty years ago, as the records of the Native Lands Court frequently show in oases of claims by conquest, that there have been seven, eight, or nine generations from the conquering ancestor to the present claimant. In the internecine wars which followed, the conquerors scrambled for the land thus acquired, and divided them as best they could —sometimes a remnant of the original people were spared, and allowed to remain on the land. These fightings and changes, and the mixing up of caused the confusion which now obtains as to titles and boundaries, and which gives so much trouble to both Europeans and natives. Ou the arrival of the first European settlers, the natives were willing to part with their lands for goods and supplies of various kinds ; they, however, did not view the pakeha freeholder in the same light in which we regard the owner of land in fee simple ; he was not looked on as having equal rights with the natives, the European was considered as a dependant of the chief and the tribe he was living with, and they were rather proud of having a ' tame pakeha,’ especially if he had plenty of munitions of war and other trade goods. This state of affairs was, however, soon to come to an end, and on the arrival of Governor Hobson the Europeans soon ceased to be ‘ their pakehas,’ and we have ever since been endeavouring to make them ‘ our Maoris.’ The treaty of Waitangi was signed, and Queen Victoria ‘ acquired the same sovereign rights over the Maoris as the respective chiefs then had over their tribes and people.’ The natives were by the treaty ‘ to be confirmed in the possession of all their proprietary rights to their land-', forests, fisheries, and other property.’ The Crown was to have, according to the European view, 1 the sole right to purchase such lands as the natives were willing _ to sell.’ From inquiries made I do not think the natives considered the latter quotation in that light, but viewed it more ‘ that the Crown was to have the first offer of such lands as they were willing to sell.’ Subsequently numbers of' Europeans commenced land purchasing antagonistically to the Goventment treaty, and the natives, settlers, and the Government came into conflict. It is not my intention to go into this i Old Land Claim’ question, further than to say that the natives were then first introduced into the school of deceit, robbery, and repudiation in land matters, and the chiefs ceased to regard ’ their word as their bond. Ihe natives, finding so much competition for their lands, have now become dishonest in their dealings, and this accounts for nearly all the complications which have arisen. V7ith a view to providing a remedy for these evils the Native Lands Act and the subsequent amendments were passed by the Legislature of the colony. A great deal has been accomplished by the Native Lands Court, and considering the difficulties which havo beset its operations its decisions will bear comparison with those of any other judicial tribunal. As the lands in the hands of the natives are fast diminishing in area, and are daily becoming more valuable, it is not difficult to predict that there will be more trouble to arrange questions of title in the future than heretofore. _ The Maori is naturally avaricious, and his cupidity, joined to the knowledge he is daily acquiring, will not improve the position. At a recent sitting of a Native Lands Court I heard a native misrepresenting a case which was within ray personal knowledge ; on his leaving the Court X expostulated with him on his conduct. He replied, ‘ I was not giving evidence to you who knew the question, but to the Court who do not know anything about it,’ and doubtless there are numerous instances of the same class. The question is, ‘ What is_ the best method to enable the natives to obtain a marketable title to their lands, and prevent further complications arising ?’ I am not at all sanguine that this can be easily accomplished for several reasons, viz.: Firstly. That you must remove from the minds of the natives the idea that we desire to acquire the whole of their land either by purchase, or, failing purchase, by fighting them. Secondly. _ The known and growing dishonesty of the natives to each other, the brother towards brother, the son towards father, and of members of the tribe towards their co-claimants. Thirdly, The competition between the European private purchasers. Fourthly. The competition between the Government and the private purchaser. Fifthly. The question of permanent reserves for native occupation, which is daily becoming more important. Sixthly. The danger of delaying the dealing with the native land question. I confess that from the first passing of the Native Lands Act I had my doubts as to its working well, and while holding the office of Civil Commissioner at Auckland, in a conversation with the then Governor, I stated that ‘ in my opinion it would turn out to be a measure which would tend to pauperise the natives, and when the lands in their hands were diminished by its action, much trouble would arise.’ I then suggested another method of dealing with the subject, which, with a few alight alterations, I will now proceed to lay before you. In order to disabuse the mind of the natives of the idea that we wish to deprive them of all their lands, the question of permanent reserves for their occupation should be dealt with in the first instance, and we have to consider the best means of giving titles for such reserves. Having disposed of the question of reserves, what is to be done with ihe remainder of the lands in order to give the owners a

marketable title to their estates. My suggestion is that a Board of three Commissioners should be appointed for the districts north of Auckland, three for the eastern side of this province, three for the western side of this province, three for the province of Napier, three for the province of Taranaki, three for the western side of the province of Wellington, and three for the eastern side of that province —say, twenty-one in all. At the first glance this may appear to be a large number, but there are sufficient competent men in the Native Department and in the Native Lands Court offices to do the work. The duties of these commissioners would be to visit each native settlement and ascertain the area of land which was actually required for reserves for their occupation. With the consent of the natives the boundaries of these reserves should be at once surveyed. This being accomplished, the persons entitled to the reserves should be ascertained, and then should receive a title iu which the names of all should be inserted, and the land should be rendered strictly inalienable. Next, the commissioners should proceed on to the ground, and ascertain the external boundaries of the lands of each hapu (subdivision of a tribe). Here the first great difficulty would be encountered, as many of these are the subject of dispute, as for instance—one hapu might contend that a stream formed the division between their lauds and those of the next hapu, and the other might be quite as positive that a ridge of a hill was the proper boundary. The commissioners would then have to decide the question, or suggest some compromise. Native disputants will frequently accept the mediation of Europeans in their quarrels about land, whereas when leftto themselves neither like to give way. In arranging for the cession of the Thames and Ohinemuri lauds for gold mining, there were upwards of forty questions of this kind to settle. The process I adopted was go on the ground with the opposing parties, and ask each to point out the extent of their respective claims. I next inquired, ‘ how long has this been the subject of dispute V If it was found to have existed for three or four generations, the natives would generally agree to the debateable ground being equally divided, but in cases where the disagreement occurred during the present generation I inquired carefully into the circumstances, and gave such decision as appeared to be in accordance with the merits of the case. As a rule the Native Lands Court is not a good vehicle for arranging conflicting claims of this description, and the parties generally adjourn outside and accept the mediation of some Native Department official, land agent, or interpreter. Having arranged the position of the external boundaries the commissioners would order a survey of the block, and after giving due notice should prdceed to ascertain the persons entitled to the land. Having determined the ownership, the natives should be invited to select some of their number, say not less than five or more than ten, to act as trustees for the whole of the hapu, the names of each member of which should be shown in the deedof grant. The trustees should have the power to alienate the laud by sale or lease, but not by mortgage. The proceeds of any sale should be apportioned among the hapu by the trustees ; but, to prevent the misappropriation of the money by them, it might he lodged to the credit of an account in the name of an officer of the Government, to be called ‘ The Native Land Funds Trustee,’ until such time as the commissioner could satisfy himself that the trustees had arranged for a fair division of the money ; the trustees being also amenable to the existing laws regarding trusts. The next point to be considered is whether the Government alone should have the right to acquire lands from tho natives. It is very advisable for the interests of the European race that this should be the law, but it would press unjustly on the native owner, who in many cases receives two or three times less the amount from the Government purchaser than he could get from private buyers. Such being the case, it might, perhaps, he advisable to limit the area which could be acquired by any settler or speculator. There is, however, another phase of the question. If the natives will not sell to the Government, it surely would be better for the lands to pass into the hands of Europeans, even though they should be speculators, than to have large tracts of country locked up iu an idle and unproductive condition. It has been proposed in the House of Representatives to stop the sale of native lands for the next twelve months. As far as I am aware, it has not yet been stated whether this is intended to refer to Government purchases as well as to those of private persons. In either case the natives will become highly discontented, and those who are indebted to Europeans will retreat to the socalled King country and become obstructives. Delay iu completing the Government purchases now under negotiation would on the other hand be highly dangerous to the interests of the public, because at the expiration of the twelve months’ ‘ aukati’ nearly all tho arrangements would have to be renewed ; and during the interregnum interested Europeans would have a fine and much wished-for opportunity of tampering with the natives and .inducing them to repudiate existing and inchoate agreements. In conclusion, in reference to the scheme suggested by me, I have had innumerable consultations with natives in various parts of the country on the subject, and they all agree that the system of making the permanent and inalienable reserves iu the first instance is correct, and they infinitely prefer the idea of the commissioners going on to the ground and settling the hapu title, than being dragged to a sitting of the Native Lands Court, which possibly may be held at a place where they cannot attend without great trouble and expense. The only point of importance raised by the natives is iu the case of absentees ; but this could be overcome by the commissioner giving a Gazette notice that on a certain day he would be at a central settlement on the block, and the claim of the hapu would be investigated. The absentee claimants are generally not numerous, and it would be easier for a few of them to attend on the ground than to take a large number to some distant European settlement at great expense. Ample notice could be given ns to the necessary preliminary surveys of external boundaries, and the marking off reserves would occupy some time. Some European friends, before whom X laid my views, suggested that the objection they saw to my proposal was, that it would take too long to carry out. I would draw attention to the lanm number of old land claims which Commissioners Godfrey and Richmond investigated in a very short period, in the early days of the colony, and the process adopted by them was ■ very similar to that which has herein been suggested. By adopting the plan indicated, I believe the title to lauds throughout the North Island would be properly and satisfactorily settled, and the services of the Native Department could in a great measure be dispensed with. As • I have already -trespassed at too great a length, I will not refer to a number of details, such as the execution of deeds, costs of survey, duty, &c., but will, with your permission, return to the subject in the course of a few days.—l am, &0., “James Maokay. “ Auckland, September 1.

“ [Since the above was in type, we have received authentic information that it is not proposed to stop the completion of Government land purchases, but that the proposed Bill will only apply to private dealings in native lands. —Ed. N.Z.H.’’]