Untitled

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume XI, Issue 1334, 26 July 1883, Page 2

Our contemporary in Tuesday evening’s issue, favors us with an article on “ Native Lands,” in which the writer assumes to take a “ sober view ” of the question. Had he not made this clear, we should most decidedly have placed the article to the credit of a dipsomaniac rather than an imbecile. As it is, we have no alternative left ns. Speaking about opening up of Native lands he says “ we should gladly welcome any decent method by which such obstacles should be removed.” We ask was the New Zealand Native Land Settlement Company’s Bill (which the Herald endeavoured to foster by all false or foul means possible) a “ decent ” method of removing such obstacles ? We cannot do otherwise than wonder what our contemporary’s definition of the word “ decent ” is. If we may judge by the sample recently displayed in connection with this matter, the word “ decent ” must bear a most extraordinary meaning to them—a meaning utterly at variance with and having no corelative meaning with the words “ truth and justice.” In fact, the writer openly advocates what he calls “ gambling -his way (we suppose) of rendering the word “ swindling ’’---only “gambling ” sounds better Then we hear expressed the true sentiments by which this precious journal is always guided and actuated, “ We are all gamblers in these dege- “ iterate days, and it seems as if all

“ who will not so gamble must go to “ the wall—or in other words have “ but a small chance of securing even “ a moderate share of the world’s “ gifts,” He evidently does not think that honesty pays, and consequently must be avoided by all those who wish to share “ even a moderate ” portion of “ the world’s gifts,” After reading the above we find that we have made a slight mistake in the first part of the foregoing, and should have substituted IL for F. We cannot but bewail ths deplorable fact that a public print should advocate and propagate such a principle, antagonistic as it is to all morality, and yet exist ! Again, by ths following he shows that lie does not believe in anything un • corrupt ; —“ It is ft fine theory—let “ the Government manage the land ; “ but it is nothing more, It breaks “ down in practice. No machinery “ can bs devised to prevent corrup- “ tion ; wires can be pulled, and prac- “ tically no one is responsible. Every- “ body knows this, The Native land “ would pay for till. It would not “ cost the country anything ; and what “ interest have the Crown and its “ officials to care particularly,” Now with respect to the above we will simply ask if it is not more probable that Government, acting independently without anything to study beyond the public interest, would not deal more fairly and justly with these lands, than would a company, whose sole object was to amass money by every possible means in their power. Is not corruption more likely to influence the latter than the former ? We say distinctly that the Government must take upon themselves the responsibility of this question. This much is absolutely aecessary on the grounds of justice and morality.