Untitled

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume IX, Issue 919, 19 February 1881, Page 4

The various difficulties, that have arisen in relation to the Pouawa block, and to the settlement on it of Mr. Reed’s special party, have given rise to a good deal of comment on the part of those who know nothing whatever of the real obstacles to be overcome. This unfavorable comment, has, of course, a large part-of its origin in the embittered feelings of those who are wholly averse to the projects of Mr. Rees for utilising to the best advantage the Native lands of the district; and who, either from intense personal feeling, or from seeing the “ craft ” in danger, are anxiously desirous that everyone of those projects should end in disaster. In relation to Pouawa it is commonly asked, “ Why does not Mr. Reed deal directly with the Native owners; pay his money, and obtain his title.” But Mr. Reed knows as well as any man that the Natives cannot give a title, nor by any process of the Native Land Court could he be enabled to give a title worth the paper on which it is written, unless the block is freed from those obligations and liabilities with which it is encumbered. Anyone should know that so long as a lease is held over a block of land, neither the Native Laud Court, nor any other Court, could enable the Native owners to cut it up or sell it, without the consent and cooperation of the lessee. Now, as is known, there is a lease over Pouawa, having some fourteen or fifteen years to run. Is it well that during these fifteen years Pouawa, Kaiti, and other blocks in the neighborhood of Gisborne should remain comparatively unproductive ? Or is it better that the difficulty of the leasehold should be compassed, and these districts be immediately filled with industrious settlers ? If, as we believe, the latter will be accepted by most as best for the general welfare, in what way we ask is the land to be settled ? By leaving the Native owners free to sell ? But the Native owners cannot sell—not one acre during the next fifteen years. Neither can they utilise it in any way either for their own use or for settlement. The vesting of that block in the Native owners themselves, simply means leaving it exactly as it is for the next fifteen years. This is perfectly well known to those who are inciting the Natives to obstruct the arrangements for settling Mr Reed’s party. They know that unless the sale of the land is in some way utilised, to disencumber the freehold from the existing lease, and its obligations, no freehold tenure can be given to those settlers ; and yet from purely malevolent motives they incite the Natives to obstruct.

Now, what is the object of the Trust which has been desired ? The Trustees, with the express view of settling this land, have acquired the lease. They, and they alone, are thus enabled to sanction an unencumbered title to Mr. Reed’s settlers. Mr. Reed knows this well, and is quite aware of the futility of attempting to obtain a title from the Native owners, except through those who have for this very purpose acquired possession of the leasehold at a cost of some £20,000. Does any one of those who pretend clearly to“ see through the difficulty, suggest in what way it can be done ? Should the leasehold be thrown up, and £20,000 chucked into the sea for the public good? The object for which Mr. Rees has been contending is this : that a portion of the block should be sold and settled, the proceeds going so far to relieve the encumbrance caused by the lease existing, that Mr. Reed’s settlers may be enabled to get their selections in fee simple unencumbered. That this can only be done by a Trust in some form or another is a palpable fact, and those who talk slightingly of the attempt, belong to one of two classes—-either those who, knowing nothing of the difficulties, find it easy and agreeable to take up the parrot cry of the hour, or those, who, knowing the barriers standing in the way of settlement on those blocks,

deliberately set themselves to thwart the settlement in a merely malicious desire to do harm. Again, those who ask why Mr. Reed has not dealt privately with the Natives, overlook the nature of his terms of settlement. His provision for settling his party, contemplates both freehold and leasehold ; the object .being that his settlers should acquire, each, say a thousand or five hundred acres in freehold, and a similar or less quantity alongside in leasehold. In what way is this to be accomplished in a direct purchase from the Natives ? If seven thousand acres freehold, were acquired in one lot, and five thousand acres, leasehold, in another, it might meet the difficulties of dealing direct, but what would be the use of the leasehold block ; and what in the case of farmers wanting their piece of leasehold alongside their proposed homestead ? It may be said Mr. Reed should not have made such an arrangement. Possibly; that was his own business; but he has, and it is to carry out this arrangement that the effort has been made. That success will attend this, and most of the other points which Mr. Rees has in hand, for the promotion of an extensive and successful settlement of the district, we are fully confident ; but it is a sorry recognition of his labors w’hen we find, that, while on the one hand some people have been poisoning the minds of Mr. Reed’s settlers, so as to drive them, if possible, from the district ; others have been maliciously stirring up the Natives, and inviting them, by misrepresentations, to obstruct the progress of an operation, not less beneficial to the Natives themselves, than it is calculated to advance this district to a foremost position in the Colony.