The Confiscation Wrangle.

Patea Mail, 21 January 1882, Page 3

The Confiscation Wrangle.

The most surprising aspect of the confiscation argument is that appearing in the Wanganui Herald of last evening. While professing to controvert and ridicule the views expressed by Mr W. Williams in this journal—and this part of the controversy we leave Mr Williams to deal with as he thinks fit—the Herald performs the surprising feat of treating a rumor as a fact, and then condemning the Government for the fact. Observe how this sleight-of-hand is managed. The Hawera journal; mentioned a rumor about an expected confiscation of land on this Coast, and went on to argue that if there is Jo be confiscation, the fairest way will be to take land from each block pro rata. The Hawera journal suggested 5,000 from one block, so much from another, and so on. Then came the Wanganui Herald , which discussed this proportion, but did not then treat the proportion as one fixed by the Government. The Herald argued at that time against confiscation as a principle, not as a question of the proportion taken from particular blocks. Mr W. Williams next struck in irith a plea favoring confiscation as a reasonable penalty—-on what basis ? Simply on the basis that land which had been offered* to natives, but not accepted by them, might be reasonably reduced in amount as a penalty for resisting and causing expense' to ; the, Government. This he called secondary confiscation, and he supported the moral effect of enforcing such a penalty by references to Maori history.

It is at this stage that the Herald returns to the charge by changing the argument re confiscation into an argument against taking land from particular blocks in a particular proportion which it alleges the Government have fixed. The Herald actually assumes that what before was a mere rumor in a country journal is now a seizure done; and . finished: by Government. The Herald of last night says :—-“In a recent issue we gave the details of 'the seizure of |the reserve--5000 acres from oue block, and 5000 another, and so, on mounting up to a total p£ ppwards Of 2t),000 acres.” This statement is wrong. The Herald merely, discttss'ed ,hbt : art actual seizure. The Herald:s\so s&jn :—“ One of the seizures has been 5000 acres from ; the Opnnaki block, ■ between Motouti and Tanngatara.”—Against this “ seizure,” which is no seizure at all, and may never be a seizure, the Herald goes on to quote passages from the- report ‘f of . the Commission, and solemnly argues that the Government have broken faith in seizing land; which had been promised by previous Governments to natives who had not taken part in war. Having carried the argument so far, the Herald draws this smug moral:— “ We are sorry indeed that Mr Williams is not better informed. Let him at once inform himself of the merits of the whole case, and defying the interested clamours of those hungering after the land of the natives, come out boldly and honestly as the champion of right. There is a wide field for his energies, and if he shonld not earn the at least, obtain the respect of the best of the Europeans. Afc|oye all, wo hope before he comes out again he will qualify himself for the controvery by posting himself up in the., facts. Jest he may again commit the almost unpardonable error of justifying an act of robbery in defiance of an overwhelming eviden'ce,VA So we are brought"to this point, that the Herald pities Mr Williams for. his ignorance, 11 \rhife s the 1 is itself ignorant of the fundamental fact in the case, namely, that the’ Government have not “ seized” any land, have not “ confiscated” any land, and have not ,there- • \ j s v. v>» ■ i fore done any iS act of robbery m defiance of overwhelming evidence.”