The Standard AND PEOPLE'S ADVOCATE. (PUBLISHED EVERY WEDNESDAY AND SATURDAY.) WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 30, 1874.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume III, Issue 234, 30 December 1874, Page 2

The Standard AND PEOPLE'S ADVOCATE. (PUBLISHED EVERY WEDNESDAY AND SATURDAY.)

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 30, 1874.

“ Vve shall sell to no man justice or right: We shell deny to no man justice or right: We shall defer to no man justice or right.”

The letter which we publish to-day from Mr. A. F. Hardy, and its accompanying enclosure from Mr. J. B. Poynter to Captain Porter, do not, we think, convey to the public mind a sufficiently clear narration of the facts that led up to the necessity for their appearance, as to dispense with our own comment upon them. The matter in dispute between Mr. Hardy and Captain Porter may be thus briefly summarised. In the latter part of November last, Mr. Drummond, acting under the alleged authority of Mr. Locke, the District Officer, commenced the survey of a piece of land, portion of the Takopa Block—in which both Mr. Hardy and his wife are interested —for the purpose of bringing the same under the operation of the Native Lands Act. Forcible opposition was offered to the survey on this and subsequent occasions by the other joint owners of the Block; Mr. Drummond was personally assaulted, and the assailants were convicted in the Resident Magistrate’s Court. Mr. Hardy, subsequently in conversation with Captain Porter, understood that gentleman to say that the N atives were acting under his instructions in opposing the survey, and, to quote from Mr. Hardy’s published letter of the 3rd December, “ he (Captain Porter) “ informed me, that, should we persist “ in attempting to carry on the survey, “ he should advise the Natives to break “ the instruments, et coetera, and re- “ move us from the ground, forcibly.”’ This accusation Captain PoniEßdenied, and gave Mr. Hardy the alternative of settling the matter through the intervention of a disinterested third party, hence the letter from Mr. Poynter, than which a more impartial view could hardly have been taken ; it has led to a substantive retractation by Mr. Hardy of the erroneous impression under which he labored; it has exculpated Captain Porter from the charge of gross misconduct, and, as far as those gentlemen are personally concerned, it has disposed of what promised to be an ugly piece of business. So far the principal actors are satisfied, and with the cause of their disagreement we have nothing further to do. But there is a subsidiary question involved on which the public have a right to demand an explanation, namely, who has, and who has not, the right to “ authorise ” and “ instruct ” either surveyors on the one hand, or the Natives on the other, relative to surveys and titles to land ? The Native Lands Act clearly defines these duties as belonging to officers specially appointed for that purpose. Captain Porter is not one of these ; still, it appears, he is acting under secret instructions from the Native Department in assuming an authority in native matters which the public cannot respect because they have not been told to do so. Whatever may have been the usage of that officer in these matters, he feels perfectly justified, we doubt not, in acting within the four corners of his authority ; but, on the other hand, if that authority bears such a stamp of esoteric mysticism as not to stand the test of public scrutiny, the sooner the settlers are removed from the possible consequences.of forcibly disputing it, the better. We do not, for a moment, say that Captain Porter is not eminently fitted to be armed with such instructions as will leave him a large margin of discretion. We are perfectly aware of the difficulty that exists in framing a code of instructions that cannot be departed from in dealing with the complicated question of Native title, and this fortifies

our objection to not placing the semicivil duties of Government officers properly before the public. Captain Porter has an exceptional, personal, influence with the Natives ; and this very fact, coupled with his “recommending them to forward a protest to the District Officer ” against the survey entered upon by Mr. Hardy, is an illustration of the evil of which we complain. A “recommendation” of that kind has a great significance with Maories who are not in the habit of considering nice points of distinction. It might, amongst Europeans, be taken as the friendly advice any one might give to his neighbor, to accept an alternative towards the peaceful solution of a difficulty; with the Natives it would be understood as an endorsement of their actions, and a personal identification with the matter in dispute. That Mr. Hardy did not act rashly in opposing Captain Porter’s authority, of which he had never heard, is much to be commended, for, although Captain Porter is cleared of the imputation of inciting the natives to forcible resistance, the fact of his presence, and official recognition of the disputed survey, gave them a certain warranty in acting in a way that might have led to most unpleasant consequences; and on whose shoulders, we ask, would the responsibility have rested ? Captain Porter is placed in an unnecessarily false position between the Government and the public, and the sooner his civil duties are properly defined, and publicly proclaimed, the better it will be for all concerned.