CORRESPONDENCE.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume I, Issue 88, 17 September 1873, Page 2

CORRESPONDENCE.

[Our columns are open for free discussion ; but we do not hold ourselves responsible for the opinions of our Correspondents.]

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.

Dear Sir, —In accordance with advertisement in Poverty Bay Standard, a meeting was held in the Court-house on Monday evening, Bth instant, to discuss Cricketing prospects ip the district. There were not many present, but it was thought advisable to elect a Committee at once, to try and see whether a club could be formed or not. This committee is only temporary, and accepts office simply to prevent the movement falling to the ground'; and as soon as a large meeting can be called, will at once give way to a permanent one. But as some rules are necessary, it met on Wednesday evening last and fixed the entrance fee at 10s’ 6d, and the subscriptions at Is per month, payable in advance on the Ist of October and Ist of April. We have obtained a piece of ground in Gisborne for practice, but it will require levelling before being fit for play ; and as this will cost nearly £lO, we hope all lovers of the “noble game” will become “ honorary ” i£»not “ playing ” members. We intend (D.V.) opening the season the last Saturday in this month. —Yours, &c., W. Hevingham Root.

Sir, —According to telegraphic news appearing in the Daily Telegraph of the 9th instant, “ Mr. Sheehan urged the repeal of the East Coast Titles Investigation Acts to bring land there under the provisions of “ this Act,” meaning the Native Lands Act now before the House. Mr. Sheehan was speaking with reference to the ceded block here, and it appears very strange to me that he should have been ignorant of the following facts :■ — Firstly. That the Acts he referred to did not apply to the ceded blocks (pursuant to the terms of the Deed of Cession) ; and in the next place, that “ The East Coast Titles Investigation Act, 1866,” and the “ East Coast Landa Titles Investigation Act, 1867, were expressly repealed by the East Coast Act, 1868.” This latter Act gives certain powers to the Native Lands Court. Therefore seeing that the Native Lands Court has no jurisdiction over the ceded block, the Acts above referred to, if still unrepealed, would not, as Mr. Sheehan seems to apprehend, require to be repealed before the ceded lands could be brought under the provisions of the new Native Lands Act. Mr. M'Lean said “ a special Act would be preferable and he would introduce one.” There is no doubt that an Act properly framed would be a boon to this district, but on the other hand unless the members of the House, or some one or more of them have fully before them the exact position of affairs with regard to this ceded block, we shall be out of the frying-pan into the fire. Whknua.