NO INJUSTICE DONE.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LVII, Issue 25, 19 June 1914, Page 6

NO INJUSTICE DONE.

WEST COAST LEASES. STATEMENT BY MR. C. A. WILKIX SOX, UP.

Mr. Wilkinson, at his Manaia meeting on Tuesday, referred to the West Coast Settlement Amendment Act of 1913. It was u matter of material and vital importance to a number 01 people in the district, and lie hoped to be able to show that no injustice had been done to anybody. The West Coast Settlement Unserves of 200,000 acres, was part of the larger area originally confiscated to the Sew .Zealand (Government and subsequently restored to the natives in consideration of their undertaking to become loyal subjects. Of this 200,000 acres a portion was alienable and a portion non-alien-able. The areas comprised in the former were leased to Europeans by the* Public Trustee for the natives and many of these were known as the 1881 Act leases and others the 1892 lenses. Those granted in 1881 were terminable in 30 years; those under the 1892 Act went on for all time. The 1681 leases comprised 18,301 acres and these were now falling insome last year, some this and some next. The question arose what should be done with them; the Maoris claimed the right to resume possession and the settlers asked for a perpetual lease and for a Commission to enquire into the whole matter. The report of that Commission was against the lessees' request. There then were the two factors—the natives and Europeans both dissatisfied with the Commission's finding, viz., to allow the tenure to remain as at present. Clearly a compromise was necessary and Mr. 'Maxwell had, in this connection, rendered invaluable assistance.

After long ami strenuous negotiations it was finally agreed that the leases should he renewed for ten years on a rental to he fixed hy arhitration; improvements to he paid for in full at the end of that term and not limited to £5 per acre as in the original leases. Twothirds of the rents to he reserved by the Public Trustee to accumulate in order to pay out to the lessees fo' r their improvements at the end of the ten years. If,, as had been suggested, the present leases had been put up to public competition or had reverted to the natives, they (the natives) would have had no ready means wherewith tq pay for the lessees' improvements. Under the present Amendment Act the natives have tho right to sell at the end of their lease or at any time prior to that if they wish. This was surely a satisfactory and equitable settlement of a difficult problem although they had heard it characterised as a wicked and monstrous thing.

It was the cry of most South Island members that the natives were being despoiled and swindled and Mr. Parata was responsible for the statement that there were 10,000 Maoris in Taranaki—incorrect, as he usually was. As a matter of fact, there were only 2391, and in the aggregate they were the richest natives in Xew Zealand. Thcv owned ■200,000 acres of land which, valued at only €lO an acre, represented two millions of money. They did not look as thoug.h they were impoverished. And what had given them their riches? ' The energy and enterprise of white settlers who built the roads, bridges, and factories. The natives had done absolutely nothing to 'help it. They had 1:20,000 acres leased to white settlers at high rentals; ,they had 18,209 acres leased under the 1881 Act; they held '25,01)8 acres for kaiangas and commonages; they held 24.800 acres under occupation licenses, and 22',),) leased for long periods to natives. It was stated by one South Island member that the Taranaki settlers had lived like harpies upon the backs of the Maoris for years. Did the facts he had just given them look like that? Mr Tssitt had termed the Bill a wicked and mon- ■ strous measure—an immoral measure—and he' knew of one man who paid .CISO a year rent and received .£I7OO. If that were so who made the land worth £l3O a year 30 years ago worth £I7OO today ? Was it -not the Europeans 'by their pioneering energy and enterprise? Certainly not the Maori. They had heard the statement made that last session'.* Act was a violation of the Treaty of Waitangi. That was not so. Under the treaty a native Jiad reserved to him the right to sell his land to the Government of the day at a price to lie agreed upon. The present Act merely reiterated that right, lint a'native was not allowed to sell land unless he could show that he had suflUicnt left to prevent his becoming a -burden on the State. That was a wise provision although he (the speaker) 'believed that to keep any people in idleness meant their deterioration. A wrong policy had been adopted in the past regarding native land increment and he need only mention the Auckland-Wellington Main Trunk line as an instance of this. If the land had been acquired from the natives at a fair price before ever the railway was started the development consequent upon the building of the railway would have increased" the value of that land to te<i times the cost of construction. They had another instance in a block of land over which the Taranaki Box Comuanj had secured timber cutting rights. They had to pay the natives enormous sums of money'for this, but all the. timbei would have been valueless Lilt for the line.