Poverty Bay Standard. PUBLISHED EVERY TUESDAY, THURSDAY AND SATURDAY MORNINGS. GISBORNE: THURSDAY, JULY 5, 1883.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume XI, Issue 1325, 5 July 1883, Page 2

Poverty Bay Standard. PUBLISHED EVERY TUESDAY, THURSDAY AND SATURDAY MORNINGS. GISBORNE: THURSDAY, JULY 5, 1883.

The New Zealand Native Land Settlement Company's Bill is now before Parliament. The examiner of private bills, in reporting to the House, stated that in many respects the promoters of the Bill failed to comply with the standing orders of .the House on the subject. To our mind, the most important defect is the imperfect public notice given of the purport of the Bill. Apparently the object of the Company was to have a Bill passed that would enable them to acquire and hold land on trust. The bill as printed and submitted to the examiner reveals a different state of things. The Company apply to Parliament to grant them power to extend their operations over the whole Colony, and they state what they desire those operations to be. To acquire land from the aboriginal owners, from Europeans, and to acquire from the Government of New Zealand — land that belongs to the public estate of the Colony. But this is not sufficient for the Company. They seek for power to hold in trust the lands belonging to the native children, and the power also of taking all steps that are necessary, to have the titles to lhe lands of the parents investigated by the Native Land Court. The most remarkable provision in the whole bill is that the Company is responsible in Courts of competent jurisdtion for the proper management of the trust estates. This clause must have been inserted inadvertently. because it is scarcely possible j to conceive that anything would go wrong under such administration. Is it not notorious how corporations in variably manage lands ? Under certain circumstances, (the bill provides) that shares of shareholders may be purchased. Native owners of land are empowered to appoint committees to deal with the Company. The payment of any monies due by the Company on any blocks of land, no matter to

bow many Natives, if paid to such committees the receipt of the com inittee men is a sufficient discharge There is no provision for the committees to accounttotheownersforraonies so received. A committeeman’s appointment might therefore be a lucrative one. The Company requiring no further power from the Government so far as the Native side of the question is concerned, unwisely, we think, directs their attention to making something out of the benighted Pakeha. There is a atari ling provision, incorporating in the Bill, lhe Roads and Bridges Construction Act of last year. If we can make our meaning clear by the expression, the New Zealand Native Land Settlement Company asks that it may be constituted a local body all oner t'.n colony 1 Can the full meaning of this power the Company seeks be thoroughly comprehended ? The Company—a band of private individuals —have the unparallelled effrontery to apply to the Parliament of New Zealand to grant to them the same power the local governing bodies of the colony possess uf applying to the Government tor money to conssturct public works out of the public r venue of the colony—the same pow, r the County of Cook or the Borough of Gisborne have for levying a special rate, or as is the case with the Turanganui bridge, by paying £lOOO to get £3OOO from the Government Will it be believed? The Company ask that they may be empowered by statute to get the public revenue of the colony to improve their private estates —not forgetting that they apply for the right to get the Crown lands.

No intimation of any measure with such large powers was given until secresy could be no longer maintained. Have the aboriginal inhabiiants of this island, whose lands this philanthropic institution so eagerly yearn after-do they know the bill the company ask Parliament to give its sanction to ? JJo the public, whose lauds they are hungering after, and whose revenue they seek to plunder the country of—do they know.” lhe Company dared not openly declare far and wide through out New Zealand to the European and Maori people, the outrageous power they asked a Colonial Legislature to grant. So long as the Company’s aims related solely to the lauds of the Maoris, the theory applied that the sooner the lands were ont of the hands of the Natives the better. But now, a danger lurks nearer home. That vital spot —the ratepayers' pocket is threatened Can u single word be said in justification of the enormous power the Company are striving tor ? The duty of Parliament is clearly laid down. When a private bill is for the particular benefit of certain persons and injurious to others, it is the duty of Parliament to discriminate between rhe confliciiiiginterests. The functions of Parliament, as established from time out of mind, in dealing with private bills of such a type as the one brought forward by the company, is of a judicial as well as of a legislative character. It is fer Paliament to weigh and earnestly consider the interests of the public as against those of the private individuals represented by the company, and to jealously guard against any legislation that will interfere with the welfare of the community as a whole. For the neoi/le of

the colony whose rights the company's bill glaringly encroach upon, it is for them to adopt the constitutional course of petitioning Parliament against the measure becoming law. If the public could thoroughly realise how their rights are being infringed upon, and the danger that threatens

them, they would send forth a cry of utter condemnation from Stewart's Island to the North Cape, that would drown for ever the voice of the promoters of the New Zealand Native Land Settlement Bill.