Poverty Bay Standard. Published Every Evening. GISBORNE : WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 1882.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume X, Issue 1197, 8 November 1882, Page 2

Poverty Bay Standard. Published Every Evening. GISBORNE : WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 1882.

The New Zealand Native Land Settlement Company issue, in the “Herald” of last evening, what they are pleased to call a “ supplementary report” from the Directors to the shareholders. The first annual meeting of the Company is stated to have been held yesterday morning, at the registered office, Gisborne. The meeting would not appear to have been a very large or influential one, the only thing giving it weight or semblance of reality being the presence of Mr. Allan McDonald, M.H.R., in the chair. The proceedings seem to have been highly satisfactory to the Directors as the report does nothing but sound their praises, the why or wherefore of which, we, in our lamentable ignorance, fail to discover. The Directors do badly, and earn for themselves a bad reputation in the minds of rightly thinking men, by starting with an equivocatory statement that “although in consequence of the adjournment to the 29th the report and balance-sheet submitted to us for inspection is not available for publication we are enabled to publish the

I SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT ISSUED BY THE Dl--1 RECTORS TO THE SHAREHOLDERS.” This may 1 seem intrusive on our part, and doubtless it is, unpleasantly so to the Directors, by ! which term we suppose the names of Messrs. Rees, Tucker, and DeLautour to be im- , plied. (We may possibly be in error regard- ! ing this) but as far as being on the spot, ■ and watching closely the proceedings of ’ the Company, can throw any gleam of light . on their slightly dark proceedings, we think ■ we are fairly justified in assuming those gentlemen to be pulling the strings, to have ; these rather pertinent criticisms made upon ; their conduct. But weave rather bold in this matter. We distinctly say that if they with- ' hold the report and the balance-sheet for any ! reason whatever, they have no right to give i publicity to a hatched-up and misleading report from the Directors to the shareholders. The report will not hold water : commencing with an equivocation, it rushes directly into untruth, and winds up with a fanciful flourish which can easily be valued by all those acquainted with Native dealings, and the mode in which the transactions of this Company have been carried out. In our issue of yesterday appears an error : in quoting the shares alleged to have been placed in London by this Company we have used the figures “seventy-five thousand;” this should have been 13,000 ; the error was a misprint in the leading figure ; but nevertheless we complain that we. by publishing such a statement, were innocently led into deceiving the ! public. Those shares never were placed , and, what is more, could not be placed'. Again comes a statement : “The operations of the “ Company have already largely aided in determining litigation in Poverty Bay, and “ have thus tended to stimulate a more active “progress in productive settlement.” This statement is absolutely false and without foundation. The Native Land Settlement Company so far from ' • determining litigation,” have induced it. Again the report says, “ The properties acquired by the Com-

i pany appear in a separate schedule accompanying the report. ” But at the same time ; they omit to say that the schedule is not i forthcoming in print. Why this attempt to I mislead the public wc are at a loss to know, i This wonderful schedule which is carefully kept cut of sight, is said to shew the actual ■ value of the net property of the Company as being over £23,893. Reduced to proper dim- • ensions with indisputable title the Company's ■ propertv maybe worth an eighth of the sum, » and we have good reason to believe that every I available acre of that is hypothecated to s its utmost value. Again, the report goes on | to say, “The work of the year now comi menced will be taxed to the utmost to keep i pace with the requirements of the Natives who I I are desirous of placing their lauds in the charge : I o/ the Company. This is so bold an exaggera- ' j tion that it demands flat contradiction. The j , Natives, with the exception of one or two, i • who are en rapport with Messrs. Rees, ' ' Tucker, and DeLautour, are by no means ‘ i desirous of entrusting their lands to this 1 ! Company. In fact unless they arc cajoled ■ by promises they utterly refuse to have any- • thing to do with them. Witness the meet- 1 ing at the Murewai, the meeting at Tologa, | 1 and the frequent application made by Natives i to ourselves to get this Company to deal fairly with them. The interest acquired j I by the Company in the Whataupoko block i is not completed. In fact tlfey have hardly i a complete title to offer as yet. We want to ■ : see this Company worked on 6o»a fide terms. | Let the present managing men Messrs. Rees, i Tucker, and De Lautour clear out of a ■ | directorate which they have shown them- i ■ selves unfit to work. Let the Company ! thmw aside all pretence of a philanthropy ! which they do not really possess, and go to ' ■ work in a business-like manner. Knowing i Messrs. Rees, Tucker, and De Lautour as i the Poverty Bay people know them, is it j possible to believe that such a tiling as phi--1 lanthropy exists in them. What utter rot ! The men are actuated by the impulse which leads every man in acquiring land from the Native. They want to make money, and they want people to believe that they are only working in the interest of, their black brother, or sister, as the case may be. We could enter fully into the genuine mercantile spirit of the business, but as the Quaker observed “d n the philanthropy,” and the worst of it is that this worthy trio are skinning the milk, while the remainder of the shareholders are waiting for their coffee. Shunt the Directorate; employ good men and true ; pay instead of promise, and we believe the Company will be made to pay ; but in the present state of affairs, and while they talk about the protection of Native interests, and bamboozle the public by issuing reports are valueless and exaggerated, they can only expect to meet with signal failure, and disgrace. The Maoris refuse to deal with them, and the white men express a wish to see “the colour of their money,” while both races combined agree that a good thing is being spoiled by ignorant and incapable management. Let us hope taat we shall not have to do a<jain what we have had to do on a previous occasion, i.e., expose the real and true state of this Company s titles. If they force us to do so, we shall do it : hut they have it in their power to redeem the past. It is never too late to mend, and as they can't risk much its worth trying.

We congratulate Captain Tucker upon the result of his impertinent interference in the Hone Kewa business. Dismissed by the Judges. We want to know what right articled clerks, or so-called articled clerics, have to interfere with their masters’ business? Captain Tucker has not yet heard the end of this matter. Paltry, contemptible spite is the origin, and disgracefully queer the present wind-up of it. We do not envy Captain Tucker his contemplation of the matter. If anything could reflect digrace upon “The Trinty” we think this business does. Hone Kewa had no more to do with the matter than we had (not so much in fact), and it was simply trumped up by the Trinity as a sequel to the “ Hansard” business. As we have told the article clerk very frequently we mean always to be a little beforehand with him and lick him every time we meet him. The “Herald” may shield him, but we mean to give him fair play. Any one who tries to stab his neighbor in the dark will find the Standard a very tough opponent.