South Canterbury Times, WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 8, 1880.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2411, 8 December 1880, Page 2

South Canterbury Times, WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 8, 1880.

An occurrence of a most discreditable and demoralising character is reported' from the Hawke’s Bay district, A block of land claimed by an individual of the name of Sutton, but possession of which appears to have been disputed by the Maori occupiers for a decade, is suddenly pounced upon by a sheriff's officer and a party of eight, a band of Maori women and decrepid old men, after a vain resistance and much expostulation, are forcibly ejected, and then the somewhat imposing as well as high-handed proceeding is turned into a farce by the sheriff and his bailiffs being finally dispossessed by a native policeman and eight Maoris. In the absence of information more explicit than anything yet telegraphed it is impossible to get at the true merits of this lamentable and ludicrous episode. The testimony seems to he conflicting, os evidence on questions affecting Maori property, usually is. But on the face of it the proceeding is discreditable in the extreme. The sheriff and his creatures are said to have acted under a writ of the Supreme Court, and Tareha, the chief, when appealed to, acknowledged that the orders of the Court must be obeyed. The Maoris, on the other hand, who subsequently relieved thejsheriff’s substitutes of their newly acquired territory, are said to hare acted under the advice and instructions of certain native agents who intimated that Sutton and not the

Supreme Court was the author of the proceedings. More than this, the hand of the Native Minister is disclosed in connection with what transpired, for it is stated that the Hon Mr Bryce really instigated the final denouement. As we have stated, in the absence of information less conflicting than what has as yet been furnished, it would be premature to express a very decided opinion, on the merits of the fracas. But, we think all impartial and intelligent colonists will agree with ns in deprecating the action that is being pursued by some of the land monopolists of the North Island towards the native race, and of which this incident furnishes an apt illustration. New r Zealand colonists have hitherto preserved a reputation for being more considerate and far less reckless than their Basnto-fighting kinsmen in South Africa. The Maoris, too, of late, have displayed an exceedingly tractable, and, in some instances, a surprisingly law-abiding disposition. If anything is calculated to inflame and exasperate the native mind it must be the way in which the Buttons and Toles of the North Island, encouraged apparently by the action of the Government, are suddenly swooping down on their possessions. The time selected for the execution of this writ was most inopportune. At present the Government are doing excellent work in the interests of settlement, but it is too much to expect that the Maoris will calmly submit to be first impounded within the reserves allotted them by the Government, and then to be driven off the soil that remains by private speculators. Mr Br yce has quite enough to do to keep the Maoris in good' humor under the State-eviction process on the West Coast without being hampered by land-sharking on the East. Regarding the action of this man Sutton and his sheriff in the most favorable light possible, no other conclusion can be arrived at than that he has acted at a moment when an important crisis in Native affairs is pending with grave indiscretion. The sword, which it is alleged he righteously wields after being suspended for ten years, has been brought down at a most critical juncture. If, how'cvcr, it is the case that the sheriff has carried out the instructions of Sutton, and not the orders of the Supreme Court, the Government will do well to consider the expediency of making him a terror to similar evildoers. Censure anil dismissal in the case of an officer of the law who recklessly becomes an instrument of illegality would be ridiculous. If he lias knowingly and wilfully committed an act of trespass, the aggravated nature of the surrounding circumstances, entitles him to the severest punishment which the huv can inflict. Something exemplary is evidently required to prevent scenes being enacted in New Zealand that would be considered disgraceful in the heart of the disaffected districts of Ireland. The driving of defenceless native women and children off their holdings is a proceeding that can only be justified by the strongest necessity and provocation. As regards the action of the Native Minister in this affair, if it ,is true that he has interposed in preventing a violation of the rights of property by the minions of the law the step that he has taken will give him a prestige among the Maoris such as has never been enjoyed by a Native Minister since the days of Sir Donald McLean.