THE MANGAKARETU BLOCK.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 5414, 3 August 1878, Page 1 (Supplement)

THE MANGAKARETU BLOCK.

(From the RangUtkei Advocate of 25th July )

In a late issue we extracted from the Gazette an item of information to the effect that money had been paid on behalf of the Government fur the purchase or acqnsitiou of tho Mangakaretu block of land, containing about 100,000 acres, between tho Turakina and Wangiehu rivers. To this information was appended the statement that the block had not passed the Native Land Court. Later copies of the Gazette to hand contain similar notifications with Regard to Te Kaharoa No.- I. Block, of 8750 acres, in the Fa tea District; Te Ranga Block, 7000 acres, Karewarowa Block, 1500 acres, and Te Ngaue Block, 18,000 acres, all in the Wanganui District, and none of which have pa-sed the Native Land Court. This would lead one to suppose that the Government were negotiating for the acquisition of native land, and had reasonable prospects of successful transactions therein. But the following advertisement, which we copy from the Wanganui Herald, conveys a very different irnpres-, si'uj, and creates an undefined feeling of dissatisfaction with the result of the present dealings in Maori estate: —“ To the Government. Sirs,-—This proclamation of yours about the Mangakaretu is incorrect (Government Gazette, July 4). We are the tribe dwelling here, to whom this laud Mangakaretu belongs. Wo have never taken money on account of the land. There is confusion iu this work of the Government, and we are vei'y dark about it—it is- a work of destruction to the native people. From Haimona, Hoaui Te Maramara, Rowene Papauui, and all the tribe. Kouuiti,, 11th July, 1878.” Previous Ministers have had trouble enough from the abortive aud mystery-sur-rounded attempts of their paid agents to secure the extinction of native titles over blocks of land, many of which still remain in a state of incompletiou as regards title. After all that has been said about the alleged bungling* of former Governments in regard to native Jam! transactions, ami the different method to be pursued in future with guaranteed unquestionably happier results, to find one of their first official intimations repudiated is not a pleasing reflection. After the cfowniug triumphs, attained at the Waitara meeting, aud the predicted promised cessation of all laud disputes in future, this most significant notification, issued by tho native owners of the Mangakaretu, distinctly ignoring all claims on the part of the Government to their land, directs' attention in a rather startling manner to the possibility of tho Pakeha-Maori year of jubilee being yet a rather remote 'contingency, apd to the probability of farther native land imbroglios looming in the immediate future. The question as to whether or not the G ivernmeut are conducting their laud purchase negotiations on equitable and legitimate'principles is one which closely affects the progress and prosperity of this portion of the North Island ; aud when wo find the Government affirming that they have paid deposits of money on a certain block of land, aud the native owners as positively asserting to the contrary, and deprecating iu somewhat metaphorical, but none the less intelligible, phraseology, the action of the Government in their dealings with land, it cannot be wondered at if suspicions are engendered which may subsequently be found very difficult to allay. Are all or any other of the blocks lately proclaimed by the Government as • being in course of acquisition by them in 0 similarly unsatisfactory state as the Mangakaretu appears to bo ? If so, the outlook is not by any means encouraging. It .melancholy to reflect, after all the money expended by the socalled Native Land Purchase Department, in the quasi-acquisition of native territory or extinction of native titles, that the extent ofsuch alienated territory fit for settlement and available in other respects for purposes of colonisation is absolutely nil. Have the present Ministry set themselves to perpetuate the errors of their predecessors in office, of the condemnation of ’ which they made potent politicalcapital when on tho Opposition side of the House ?