PUBLIC OPINION.

Patea Mail, 27 January 1882, Page 3

PUBLIC OPINION.

. —« Contributions, Letters, Inquiries and Answers thereto, are invited on Farming. Commerce, Politics, and matters of interest to the Patea district. Names of writers need not be Printed. IS CONFISCATION FAIR? I find the Wanganui Herald of the 20th contains a leader which purports to be an answer to my letter published in the Mail on the 17th. In the first place, I am charged with committing myself to statements violently opposed to both ancient and modern history; and I am asked to refresh myself as to the origin of the Waitara war. Now is this an answer to my letter ? If so, I fail to see it; but if the writer is anxious to know, I will refresh his memory. That war was certainly not caused by ? y greedy individuals cheating the natives oat of their land, but was brought on by the Government transactions with the rightful owner. The turbulent chief Wirerau King opposed the sale, and hence the trouble. Although Wiremu said the land was not his, but Teira’s, yet he would not allow it to be floated away. Tke-words used were these : Mr Parris: Does the land belong to Teira and his party ? Wi Kingi: Yes, the land is theirs; but I will not let them sell it. It was this that led to the Waitara war. I think the Government were right and the Maoris wrong, because Wi Kingi was only there on sufferance from Teira’s father ; but I must say that the whole of this history is too long for a newspaper controversy, hence I must leave it here. I do not pretend to say the Government did not blunder, for I am sure they did in this particular; but that is not an answer to my letter. I will now refer to Mr Sheehan. In the West Coast Commission appendix A., part 2., Mr Sheehan’s letter No. 2 sa y S: —“For a long time before the turning off of the surveyors, I had frequently discussed with Major Brown what action should be taken with regard to the confiscated land between the northern boundary of the Wniraate Plains block and the southern boundary of the Hangatana block. It is impossible for me to recollect exactly what took place, in those numerous conversations, but they amounted in substance to this: (a) If the Waimate Plains are allowed to be dealt with without obstruction on the part of the natives, we should make ample provision on that block for the original owners* (6) The small block north of the Waimate Plains block, up to the boundary of the Opunaki block, was to be dealt with in the same way, (c) The Opunaki block was regarded as given back to Wi Kingi and his people. ( d) The Hangatana block was looked upon as being in the same position. As to the Parihaka block, it was the intention of the Government to give it back to the natives. But the restoration teas to be entirely dependent on good, behaviour.” Further on he says: “On one point the ivbole Government was unanimous ; namely, that any concessions made to Tc Whiti and the other owners of the Parihaka block should be absolutely conditional on good behaviour.” Now this promise was never made to the Parihaka natives. It was only the intention of the Government to do so, providing the natives accepted the conditions. But in this they signally failed, for Te Whiti did, in conjunction with the other natives, give jail the obstruction and trouble he could s by fencing, &c. This applies to Matakatea and his people as well as to the Parihaka natives ; for all the tribes did all they could tn obstruct and defy the Government. I cannot for a moment conceive why the chiefs who do not control their people should bo allowed to retain their land ; because if the land is uot taken, how are they to be punished, seeing that they arc all communists ? The land is not the absolute property of the chiefs, but of the commune or tribe. Hence I conceive that if one native of a tribe remains loyal, according to the Herald’s theory, he should be allowed to retain the land

of all those who have been actively obstructing. But from this I dissent. There is one other paragraph : I do not exactly know whom it refers to. It is this : “ There is also a little robbery of which a certain native commissioner got the benefit, referred to by the Royal Commissioners.” Now Ido not know who this greedy individual may be, but I may say that I do not endorse all that has been done or said by the R.C. or any one else. When I see good has been done, as in the case of Parihaka by the Native Minister, I willingly acknowledge it, although I may and do differ on other matters. But I say, let ns give honor to whom honor is due; and I for one will not withhold it from Mr Bryce. Now with regard to the sorrow expressed for my want of information, I simply return the compliment, and trust that we shall get both wiser and better, for I think there is much room for improvement. W. Williams.

A CONCESSION. I am one of those who think there has been too much libel lately, but the way some libels are “worked” is curious to see. It is proclaimed, as a concession, that “Mr Hamerton would not have pressed for a hearing in the absence of the prosecutor’s counsel.” This is magnanimous. The defendant would not have insisted on being prosecuted, even if the prosecutor had wished to prosecute him, unless the prosecutor’s counsel were also present. I must say I have learnt a wrinkle. It is like saying a delinquent would not insist on being taken into custody, unless the policeman was there to do it. Good on you! Lookicr-on. ♦ EARLY CLOSING. I thoroughly agree with “ New Arrival” upon his views of early closing. Once upon a time we did not do these things so badly ; but since the advent of a late arrival in our midst, early closing has gone crooked, I should like to know what remedy “ New Arrival ” would suggest to meet a case of a shop-keeper who is not known to have closed his establishment for two months at a stretch. He was asked to mend his ways—gave a pro mise after the holidays to do so. He is ’still unreformed. As a temporary expedient I have divided my hands into two reliefs, taking it in turns nightly to superintend the burning of my kerosine ; but I cannot go on burning kerosine for ever to suit any whim or greediness of individuals who have no thought of anybody but self. Perhaps “New Arrival” may devise a remedy,—Yours, &c., R. A. Adams. Patea, Jany. 27.