East Coast Association.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume X, Issue 1038, 18 February 1882, Page 2

East Coast Association.

THE REPORT OF THE PP.OVISlO N A L CO MM ITTEE. The following is a repor'; of the Provisional Committee appointed at a preliminary meeting of persons desirous of forming an Association for the purpose of revising the existing Native land laws and other matters affecting the welfare of the East Coast. Pursuant to a resolution passed at a preliminary meeting held at the Masonic Hotel, Gisborne, on Saturday, 21st Jan. last, the Provisional Com mittee has sedulously carried out the duties imposed upon it, and to the best oi: its ability, alter having fully considered what in its opinion are the existirg defects and mischiefs in the Native Land Statute Laws and the Statute Law affecting land held by Natives, and land purchased by Europeans Irom Natives, notstrietly Native land, begs to report as follow Your Committee in the first instance after perusing the different statutes, divided the lands granted to the Natives into three classes or holdings as follows : —lst. Lands which have passed through the Native Land Court under the Act of 1867 for which certificates of title were issued to ton Natives,'named upon the face of the certificates, in trust for themselves and such Natives whose names might appear upon the back of such certificates, such land so awarded being made inalienable, except with power to lease for 21 years. 2nd. Lands which passed through the Native Land Court under the Act of 1873, and are held under what is termed memorial of ownership. 3rd. Land fur which a Crown grants has been issued under the Poverty Bay Grants Act of 1869. The first and second class are titles crea'ed especially by these statutes, and are in no way known to English law, and therefore, in respect thereto, your Committee anticipated to find many defects, which will be hereafter enumerated and brought forward in Illis report; but with regard to the third class there is not so much difficulty because it is a title so well known to the English law, and a title which the Native Land Court has no control over. Your Committee has spared no time or trouble in endeavoring to lav before you the result of its labors, and has adopted the course of taking each Act separately, and eliminating such clauses as are in its opinion objectionable, delectivc, and mischievous, as follows : — The Native Land Act, 1867. Your t'ominiltoe report that the following grievances exist under this Act:—That lands held under the 17th section of this Aid were made inalientble excepting by lease for 21 years, xnd although the 97th and 98ili sections of the Act 1873 deal with this i nest ion, it is vague and unsatisfactory, inasmuch as no award of parliion shall take effect during the sublislcnce of any lease of the land coin wised in such award. Tut: Native Land Act 1873. Your Committee report under this \ct that grievances exist under many lections, as follows: — Section 18. That this section should io carried out in this district, as it was iriginally established under this Act ; ind there is great want in this district if a permanent Native Land Court, to ilso include a Record Office, with a iroper staff of officers to carry on the vork, as provided for in Clause 81 of his Act. Sections 45 and 46, which should ompel the Court to define the interest if every owner, and that every Eu- I

ropean holding a lease from a majority, of owners in a block should have power of going to the Court to have the interest df the Natives who have leased to him defined.

Sections 48 and 49, relating to memorials of ownership, and which limit the power of Natives dealing with land. Section 51, re'ating to enrolment of persons suffering under disability. Section 59, 60, and 62, which treat of sales, leases, and partition, and which invalidate all transactions which have not received the assent of all the owners, and are unjust. Sections 63, 64, 65, 67, and 68, which further relate to the partition of land. Section S 3 is vexatious, causing extra expense in preparing deeds. Section st relating to mortgages. Section 86, which provides for the signature of husbands. Seci ion 87 is unjust in Its limitation and ambiguous. Section 88, which allows Natives without their property being affected, to enter into expensive litigation. Seeli.ni 97, which bears hard on Native owners, and has already been referred to above. Your Committee having carefully gone through this Act, bring he! orc your no* ice 1 he grievances which in their opinion, exist under the same, and now call your attention to the following omissions and defects;— That a radical amendment is required to enable each individual Native to legally lense or sell; and further to legally validate all signatures already obtained. That it be compulsory on the Court on the application of any Native, or European M'ho has acquired interest in land by purchase or lease to subdivide the same. The comparatively few persons who wore under the 12th section of the 1878 Act, able to witness Native signatures. 'That the introduction of children as owners info any block of land during the life lime of the parents, ought to be discontinued. That great difficulty exists in obtaining the certificate of the Trust Commissioner. That the Native Lands Fraud Prevention and Amendment Act should be further amended to enable the Trust Commissioner to endorse his certificate on any deed, notwithstanding the wh-ile of the signatures are not obtained. That the Native Land Court should exercise greater care in admitting claimants, in justice having been done heretofore in admitting many who have been proposed out of arolia. Reserves should be set apart sufficient for maintenance of Natives, and defined at once.

'That no liabilities should be incurred for Native land duty with respect to leases until complete. The Poverty Bay Grants Act, 1869. As regards land held under the Poverty Bay Grants Act. 1869, the tenure being of a special nature, and the Act conferring the title being a local Act, special legislatior will be required, and the committee Mould bring before your notice the following grievances M'hieh exist under this Act: 1. That in nearly all the blocks granted under this Act Europeans have acquired interests which can only be defined by the Supreme Court at a cost which in many instances the land will not bear. 2? That the passing of the Native Grantees Act, 1873,caused much needless li igation, from its being exceptional and ambiguous in nature. 3. That the joint tenancy system bears very heavily on the Native owners. 4. Provision should be made for I he apportionment of costs of subdivision between tiie different parties interested. 5. That the law of partition should be followed as closely as possible, and that Equity Judges should be appointed to adjudicate upon the pcti.ion.

In bringing the consideration of the several Acts to a close, your Committee, in the short space of time allotted them, have doubtless overlooked many defects; these will be more fully enquired into by your permanent Committee, on whom will also devolve the onus of suggesting remedies for the enumerated grievances, and which, by the powers dictated to us at the last meeting, has not fallen within our province. AVe would remind you, however, ere wo close, that other difficullies exist in this district besides the Native land question. Our time and thought has been devoted to this as the most important grievance under winch we labor—the grievance on which we were commissioned to report, and the the grievance moreover which has retarded the progress and advancement of the district.

The Association will, we trust, have it in its power in the future to make suggestions, to remedy and mitigate other disabilities. We would draw your attention to the want of a sit I ing of the Supreme Court, by which a large expenditure would be saved both Io the State and to private individuals. The great want of a Deeds Registry Office has caused much inconvenience, expense, and loss of time in searching records. A local Waste Lands Board is required which would work better for the Slate and the district than the present Board in Auckland. Questions sueh as a Harbor of Refuge and the giving extended powers to local bodies, either for the increase of rates or supplementing their rates, with increased grants from Government.

These and other matters will come before us in the future. Our present aim is to remedy the wrongs which exist. In the Native owning what he can neither live on, or of which he has power of disposal, and we would express our conviction that the time has now arrived when the Natives should, with certain instructions, enjoy the privilege accorded to European British subjects in dealing with land, and which we predict would beget in him fresh feelings of affections to the Throne, and to the laws under which he lives. Our future prosperity depends on the settlement of this much vexed question, which for so long a time has kept capital from our Coast, paralyzed our energies, and kept immense tracts of lands second to none in the Colony for natural advantages in their wild and primitive state. Weask you then to go with this Association, to give it your earnest ami cordial support, and as a collective body help it by every measure in your power to carry out its objects, objects defined at our first meeting. The urging upon the Government the lienecessity of introducing during the ensuing Session of Parliament such legislation as will provide for the subdivision of lands in the district ; faeilis tatc the adjustment of the disputed titles, and generally for such nieasureas will promote the settlement and prosperity of the East Coast;