LETTESS TO THE EDITOR.

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 7, Issue 369, 12 November 1863, Page 3

LETTESS TO THE EDITOR.

November 5, 1563. Sir, —Seeing thart these are rather critical times with regard to natives and their lands, and the colony generally, I think it right to inquire what right the natives have to the waste lands of this country. The reason why I make this inquiry is, that things may be settled on the best basis at the conclusion of the present war. We know that the natives in general do not know which of them has got any particular claim to any of the waste land, and that in many cases none of them have seen it. But they seem to act on the principle of the dog in the manger, which could not eat the hay himself, nor would he allow the cattle to eat it. So it is with the natives and the waste laud of this country—they cannot use it themselves, and they are unwilling for us to use it. We find in America and Australia that nothing could be satisfactorily done in native matters till their governments took the waste lands out of the natives’ hands. In this country the natives have been, pampered up to such an extent, and treated in such a manner as to leave an impression on their minds that we are afraid of them, and they talk quite confidently of driving our Government out of the island. The natives are not agreed amongst themselves which of them is the rightful owner of any particular portion of waste land. Have the natives any right to waste land by treaty ? In the first place, a treaty to be binding must be understood by all parties concerned : now there is plenty of proof to show that the natives who signed the treaty of Wai-

tangi did not understand what it meant, and the most part of the natives never heard of it, and consequently they could not agree with a thing they knew nothing of. A treaty, unless it is understood by all parties concerned, is no treaty at all ; but if the treaty had been legal, the natives have forfeited all claim to its protection by their rebellion at different times. Have the natives any natural right to tho waste lands of this country so as to justify them in keeping it locked up in a useless state, when the land is required for the support of another portion of the human race? I maintain that all ownership of land, even in a cultivated country, is conditional and limited. We read that the earth was given-to man to produce his food from. We cannot imagine any law, either human or divine, that will justify a lot of savages in keeping a large country in a useless state, and for no other reason than their own whim 3. I consider that our right to the laud is at least equal to theirs ; their claim only consists in their having been born in the country—ours consists in having been able to find the country out; the waste land is no use to them. Nature justifies us in taking the waste land, because as a people we require it to subsist upon, our own country being overpeopled. The natives, as a people, have got no use for the waste land. We have mild laws, which work for the good of the, whole people; the natives have only their savage customs. If we suppose the land owners to have a right to do as they like with their land, they could if they thought proper cease to cultivate altogether, and by that means the non-owners of land would have to starve. Sir George Grey sets the ownership of land at rest as far as the present rebels are concerned—for he has proclaimed that all natives who join the late murderers in resisting tho Government will be considered equally guilty of murder with them that committed the deed, and that they will be treated accordingly. The Governor’s proclamation, then, renders it certain that those lands will be forfeited, because parties pronounced guilty of murder cannot lawfully hold lauded property. If he carry this out we shall soon see an end to the disturbed state of the country. Once convince the natives that they will be losers by their lawless deeds instead of gainers, as they have hitherto been, then we shall have peace anti quietness established—but not till then. John Jackson.

November 5, 18G.1. Sir, —When I asked you on what authority you stated so positively that no military settlements are to be formed anywhere in this province, it did not occur to me that, by answering my question, you would have to divulge secrets known only to yourself and the Prime Minister. The extracts which you make from papers laid before the General Assembly in answer to my question, I am rejoiced to see, fully affirm the principle, that guarantees in land are to bo taken from the rebel tribes. Your extract which states that, “After the settlement of the present difficulty with the Waikato tribes, a similar plan, suitable to the nature of the country, must ho carried out with the .rebellious tribes of Taranaki,” evidently includes the marauding Ngatiruanuis, who inhabit the country between Waitotara and Taranaki. These are the people who originated the conspiracy to murder all the whites before the Taranaki war began, and who still proudly cling to the hope that they will be able to do so. Why the lands belonging to these lawless hordes—which is situated between Waitotara and Patea, therfoke in this province—should not be taken to form a barrier settlement is more than I can at present make out ; in fact, unless a fox accomplishes some of his clever tricks, I don’t see why what is sauce for the Taranaki goose should not be sauce for the Ngatiruanui gander. Having thus shown that your answer is, .in reality, a confirmation of my views, I will only further remark, that the despatches from the Duke, of Newcastle, which you publish to-day, show that the eyes of the British Government are being opened with regard to the tactics of the peace-at-auy-price party ; this fact must make the colony at large rejoice. I am, sir, yours obediently*, • Pacifieator. Putiki Wharanui, 3 Nohema, 1563. Ki te kai ta o te nupepa kei Wanganui. E hoa ten a ra koe, E hoa mau enei korero e ta mai ki to nupepa kia kite nga Pakeha kia kite koki a Ilenare Piira mo tuna v hakaheanga ia Rio raua ko Piripi mo ta raua lroatutanga i te Whenua kia te Petitone, ara i Waitotara. Na E hoa ma no raua anake tenei whenua no reira hold raua i kaha ai kite tuku atu kite Pakeha. Engari ko to Aperahama kei tera taka o Waitotara, kei te taha kite Qri, otira na raua tahi ano ko Rio, toko malia noa atu ratou ki tera taha. Engari ka tika te maki a Rio raua ko Piripi, ko te Pakeha nci ko Henare Piira ka he tona korero ; no te mea kahore i mohio ia, a noho noa ia kite tuku i taua korero ki to nupepa. Heotiano. Na Hori Kingi te Anaua. ~ Te Kepa te Rangihiwiuui. ~ Huani Wiremu Hipangori Putiki Wharanui, 3rd Nov., 1803. To the Editor of the Wanganui newspaper. Friend, —Salutations to ' you. Friend, print these remarks in your newspaper, that the Pakehas may see, that Henry Field may see, for his making out Rio and Piripi wrong in their giving the land to Dr. Featherston — that is, Waitotara. Behold, friend, this land belongs to these two alone, and therefore they were strong to give it up to the Pakeha. Abraham’s land is on the other side of Waitotara, on the western side, but to him and Rio together ; there are many of them on that side. The work of Rio and Piripi is correct. This Pakeha, Henry Field, Iris talk is wrong, because he has no knowledge, and sits down to seud his talk to your newspaper. From Hori Kingi te Anaua. ~ Te Kepa te Rangihiwinui. ~ Hoani Wiremu Hipango.