CORRESPONDENCE.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume III, Issue 303, 1 September 1875, Page 2

CORRESPONDENCE.

Our columns are open for free discussion ; but we do not hold ourselves responsible for the opinions of our Correspondents. :O: TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —I was rather amused at the leading article in the Poverty Bay Herald, of the 24th ultimo, suggesting to the candidates for the coming election the grounds on which they can expect to claim our support, and pointing out the unsuitability of returning an advocate of the large squatter and land holding interest, or a member that would advocate everything or anything for the sake of a Government billet. Just fancy the little lawyer’s clerk suggesting to the settlers of Poverty Bay what sort of member we want! We know what he is driving at; the next thing he will be canvassing support for his employer the coming man; Mr. Carlile. There is one thing quite certain, we want a local man who knows the requirements of the district, and who will be untiring in his exertions to get a fair share of public money for it. Who cares whether he be large or small holder, since it is difficult to see how he could represent one interest without the other ? As regards the squatter, I was not aware there was one in the Bay; perhaps the editor of the P. B. Herald could direct me to his diggings, I should like to sec one, not having met one since I left Victoria. To wind up I beg to tender my best thanks to the editor of the Herald for his suggestions, aud regret very much to hear that the Bay is about to lose such an able man as he, though I hear we are going to have a very good substitute in Mr. Mackay sen., the present ferryman. Hoping I have not encroached too much on your valuable space.—l am, &0., Small Settler.

Sib, —In the Standard of the 7th ulto., appears a letter signed “Equity” from behind the hedge row, giving me a stab in the dark. As “facts are chiels that winna ding,” I will give the facts of the case, leaving those at the meeting to judge whether my statement is true. With regard to the £4OO a year, I refer to my letter of the 27th July. As to “ Equity’s” assertion that I made usqjjf private conversation, I will hear., state what really occurred at the public meeting.

As soon as the last vote had been decided, Captain Gudgeon stated to me openly in the room “ what you have said is all nonsense, as there is no Act that a coach and six could not be driven through ;” on hearing this several persons gathered round and joined in the conversation, putting questions to me relative to the business of the meeting, which all the room could have heard. Now if Mr. “ Equity" calls that “private,” would he condescend to enlighten my obtuse intellect as to what he considers “ public” conversation ? Does he maintain that an officer of Constabulary can take up and lay down his duty as a guardian of the peace as he thinks fit? Does he hold that in case of a breach of the peace during a public meeting, those who break the law will be safe as far as the constables are concerned ? With regard to semi-drunken men alighting at Villers’ door—which Villers could not prevent—it scarcely required the Inspector to report to the Bench, even “in the mildest manner possible,” —a case over which he (Villers) had do control. If Mr. “Equity,” or his protoge is very anxious to have the thing reported to the Commissioner, which he states, would be the most straightforward course. I may state that he can have that done if he wishes ; but I infer that his anxiety to have it reported, implies that it is not the duty of the Inspector to interfere, and that he adds the last straw to break the camel’s back. Had “Equity” adhered to the truth I would not have troubled you with further explanation ; and I may say that if his assertion is a specimen of the laws of the “ society” in which he moves* I have no desire to become a member of such an exalted sphere of existence. In conclusion, I warn “ Equity” that if he does not, in the next Standard, retract his false, and insulting insinuations, with an explanation, I will find out the duties of Sub-Inspector Gudgeon, by communicating with the Hon the Defence Minister, as it is high time for the benefit of society that a change took place in the administration of the laws in the district.—l am, &c., Robt. Breingan.

Sib, —The inconvenience attending the effectuating of land transactions under the present Native Land Act, has now become a common cause of complaint, and various suggestions have been made relative to its amendment; yet I doubt if the Government will be inclined to meddle with an Act with which they themselves areju all probability, perfectly satisfied. The task of framing an Act which would answer all requirements, and, at the same time, recognise obligations entered into with the natives in former years, is, by no means, an easy one. Beyond a slight amendment of the clause relating to the signing of deeds and instruments, little alteration is required. It appears by this clause that the attesting R.M. is to satisfy himself that each individual fully understands the purport of the document he is about to sign; this, in itself, involves the sen ices of an extra interpreter—unless it so happens that the R.M. understands the native language—making in all three interpreters, viz., negotiator, effeetuator, and the R.M.’s medium for questioning the natives. This is arrived at by reading and construing

rule 2of Interpreters’ Regulation®, with the 85th section of the Native Land Act. The only one of these three to whom a license is not necessary, is the first, though I am afraid that in many cases, one person performs the whole three duties. If a duly qualified person were appointed as District Effeetuator at a small salary, he, as a servant of the Government, would be unavailable as a negotiator, while his ordinary fees for effectuating would still be chargeable to those requiring his services; and he would thus become responsible for the due carrying out of the clause which so many pronounce unnecessary, but which a recollection of past transactions shows to be the reverse.

Your correspondent, “East Coast Settler,” in the latter part of his letter, of the 28th, takes ratlier a one-sided view of the matter. He there refers to, and simply advocates a readoption of the Acts repealed by the present one, under which the beautiful lands of Hawke’s Bay were dealt with, to the utter discomfiture of the bulk of the native owners, and also gave rise to the famous repudiation scheme. He talks of chiefs and wares, as if he. or anyone else, knew one from the other (that is, in origin). Mortality in a tribe, may enrich the surviving ones in the item of land, in fact the wheel of Fortune has as much to do with it in their case, as in our own. A native may be a large land owner, though not a chief, and the present Act furnishes the means of determining it if the owners so desire; for, however small the interest of certain owners may be, it is but right that they should deal with it themselves, always supposing that they are under no legal disability. It does not appear to have struck “ East Coast Settler,” that some of the native owners may be averse to disposing of their land in any way; hence, probably, their unwillingness to sign deeds.. If, as he says, their interests are small, the more reason why they should be reluctant to sell or lease. I wonder how he would like to be a ware, and to have his fancy plot of ground signed away by a so called chief, because the Native Land Act permitted it ? The Public Works scheme is in full force, and the Government are rapidly acquiring the surplus land of the natives ; but if private persons would negotiate with the Government instead of with the natives they would find the land cheaper in the end.—l am, &c., W. F. Hale. Ormond, August 29.