The Waikato Times AND THAMES VALLEY GAZETTE. SATURDAY, JAN. 16, 1892.

Waikato Times, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 3043, 16 January 1892, Page 2

The Waikato Times AND THAMES VALLEY GAZETTE.

SATURDAY, JAN. 16, 1892.

Equal and exact justice to all men, 0? whatsoever state or persuasion, religious or political.

Considerable discontent exists in the minds of the Maoris at the policy laid down by the Native Minister to deal with their lands in the King Country. They are naturally dissatisfied at the low upset price of 5s per acre for the land which it is contemplated, in the absence of voluntary cession, to appropriate to the Crown. They are quite alive to the fact that were th 6 restriction removed they could command a very much higher figure. They complain that they have boon induced by previous Governments to pass their land through the court, on tho understanding that if they did so they would be allowed to dispose of it as they wished. We are not aware that any definite promise was made to this effect, lout there can be no question that by implication the natives were led to believe that such would bo tho caso. In considering tho question, the terms of the proclamation confiscating certain areas as punishment for rebellion must be remembered. This bears the interpretation that as regarded the lands not confiscated, the natives would be allowed a free hand. The Hon. Mr Cadman, in his address last mouth at Otorohanga said: " The Europeans objected to their money being spent to enhance the value of their lands. Another European objection was that native produce, produced on untaxed land, competed with theirs. These grievances were daily increasing, and if not removed amicably, Parliamentary action must be taken," This means of cours9 either taxation or confiscation minus 53 per acre. The natives very naturally retort: "We did not want your railway; in fact its construction was very much against our wishes." The Maoris have unquestionable equity on their side, and it is for Parliament to consider how far public policy, and public necessity justify their being dealt with in a manner not in accordance therewith. It is of course beyond dispute that individual rights must be subservient to the welfare of the commonwealth, but good Government is clearly that the fact should be demonstrated that the two are antagonistic before the former are trenched upon. A right once acquired by law should be sacred unless the right of the individual is proved to be inimical to the welfare of the country. The above are certainly the ethics of the question and should not be departed from for the simple reason that there is over the one side a people just rising from a state of savagedom, and on the other a people who have the benefit of centuries of what is perhaps more euphoniously, than with strict accuracy, termed civilization. It appears to us that the following are the questions to be decided before an opinion can be arrived at as to the righteousness of.Mr Cadman's proposals : Is the land urgently required for settlement because there is none otiicr available ? 2. Is its retention by the natives injurious to the commonwealth ? 3. If so, would not the giving to the natives the right to deal with it curt; the evil l>y leading to its disposal to Europeans? I. Could not the. country bo recouped for its expenditure on public works otherwise than by the difference between the forced - purchase price of the land and that at which it may bo disposed of 1 As regards the first question the answer must be negative. There is plenty of land to meet, all the demand for settlement. As regards the second it is indisputable that the holding of land and not making it productive l>y the application of capital and laboui is a bar to general prosperity.

The natives, however, are not unmitigated sinners in this respect. Of late they have clone very good pioneer work, as is evidenced by their purchases of stock and their placing on the market a considerable quantity of agricultural produce. This is admitted by Mr Cad man by his remark that the competition of the natives with untaxed land is felt by Europeans. As to our third question, we believe thot if the. natives were left untrammelled they would sell the land which they cannot utilise with their present means, and apply the money they received to the improvement of that which they retained. The avowed determination not to sell is, in the opinion of well-informed men, the result of the restrictions on their freedom and disgust at the low price offered by Government. We now come to our fourth and last question. It is true that compensation for work done, and consequent addition to value, could by other means be more gradually recovered than by purchasing at 5s and selling at £2, but the fact must not be lost sight of that from the moment the land passes it becomes liable to taxation to its full value, which would include, of course, the increment consequent on the expenditure of public money. The land would be equally liable to taxation if the Government were the passing medium, but is it fair to either race that Government should use such excessively adhesive palms that the first direct profit may be trapped in the first instance, and afterwards thumping good interest in the shape of a land tax extorted from their customers—the settlers. The question naturally arises, is not the proposed course of the Government suggested mainly by their hatred oi freehold tenure, no matter how ac qnired. We believe that equity and sound policy demand that, as is taught in the nursery rhyme with : regard to the sheep of little Bo Peep—Let them alone and they'll come home and bring their tails behind them.