ELMSLEY CASE.

Auckland Star, Volume LX, Issue 222, 19 September 1929, Page 14

ELMSLEY CASE.

WHY PROSECUTION FAILED. DEFINITION OF THE LAW. "AMPLE MEANS . FOR ■ REDRESS." (By Telegraph.—Press .Association.) WELLINGTON, Wednesday. The Minister of Justice, the. Hon.-T. M. Wilford, made a statement ,in the House to-day in reference to a question recently asked by Mr. J. McCombs (Lab., Lyttelton). Mr. McCombs asked: "Whether, if the law is that a man may beat, illtreat and starve-his wife, and, provided she can' run away and does not do so, tho husband cannot be 'convicted of an offence, he will- have ' the law altered so that the plea • that she could •have run away from her own home will not defeat the ends of justice?" Mr. Wilford said the .Solicitor-General had advised him that the law was not as assumed in the question. He stated that in a case of a man beating his wife he could be charged with assault as in other cases, and; if convicted, i punished accordingly. If he failed to supply her with adequate means of maintenance she might apply to a magistrate under the Destitute Persons Act for an order that he should pay -,her a reasonable sum for her maintenance. If he were guilty of persistent cruelty to her she could be granted summary separation, maintenance and custody of any children. . - ■ v The Minister said the law appeared, therefore, to give a wife ample means for obtaining redress for any ill-treatment by her husband. In the case which had probably caused the question to be asked proceedings had been taken by the police under a section of the Crimes Act designed for the protection of persons who, by reason of mental' or physical defects or ill-health, were dependent on others and unable to withdraw themselves from such care or to provide for themselves. It had appeared when , the proceedings had been instituted that Mrs. Elmsley had been in that position. In the Supreme Court, however, her evidence had shown that slie ■ had had relatives to whom she might have gone, that she had had both the opportunity and means to do so if'she had wished, and that neither her mental nor physical condition had prevented her from.doing so. It had appeared that she'had preferred to remain with her children and submit to harsh treatment rather than live apart, with tho risk of separation from- them; ■ The Minister said the question of proceedings for assault had been considered in that case, but owing 1 to the lapse of time (some seven or'eight years) since tho last assault that could have been proved, and the indefinite nature of the evidence, it had been considered that'such a charge could not have been '

NATIVE LEASES.

COMiMISSION'S REPORT CRITICISED. CONTRACTS TO BE BROKEN. WHY NOT MAORI SETTLEMENT? We have received the following letter from Mr. George Graham: The Commission set up to inquire into the problems affecting these leasehold areas has now issued its report. Traditionally true to all such tribunals concerning native lands, it declares the solution of the task set it (and which it really has not solved) to be "acquisition by the lessees of the freehold." In plain language this ie the extinction of the Maori title. To. achieve that end ("even if the lessors' do not consent"—as the report calmly puts it), financial provision is suggested to thus dispose of the Maori lessor. This is all without reference to the Maori point of view, or in deference to hie possible--or even known —feelings in the matter. It may be remarked that there was no Maori representative on the Commission. It all looks like dealing with the other fellow's property and deciding thereon without consulting him—a very expeditious way of disposing of an awkward situation. For the purposes of administration, and in alleged protection of native interests, large areas of lands held under'this leasehold tenure were "vested in the board.". Other areas are held under "privatp leases" in terms approved by the board. All these leases which the Commission suggests should be terminated, "even if the lessors do not consent" thereto, are legal contracts whereunder the Maori understood his rights as lessor would be fully upheld by the law as to the observances of the conditions as to rent, etc., and the due return to him of his land on the expiration or sooner termination of the lease. The Commission now proposes that when tlie lessee is not prepared "to carry on," to

relieve him, not by returning the land to its owner, but by buying him out, "even il the lessors do not consent." There is no recommendation that. the bargain originally entered into in good faith by the Maoribe enforced, or that the land be offered to other possible tenants, or, still .better, be returned to the expectant Maori owner relying on the law's protection as to his rights. All these leases —these legal contracts—are in fact to be treated verily as so many "scraps of paper." Now, if it be feasible to borrow money on these lands for their thus being compulsorily acquired, it should be equally so to arrange finance to enable the Maori owners thereof to efficiently occupy the same. Thereby we would create prosperous Maori communities contributing to our general national welfare. That this can be done is amply demonstrated in other native districts, where as dairy, sheep or cattle farmers the Maori so aided has made good. For example, to quote in brief the last Departmental report, one Maori owned a dairy factory, "last season turned out 285 tons of high grade butter," and this season will far exceed that. Similar reports come from other districts where "550 Maoris supplied butterfat valued at £o3,000." Why not therefore aim at similar results for our King Country Maoris? Why only plan to evolve schemes to denude them of their lands, and bring about the only possible result, so many more repetitions of Orakei-dom, thus further augmenting Maori social miseries due primarily to landlessness ? For even if the purchase money of these lands to be so acquired be ever so well guarded, it is a poor substitute to have a landless Maori people, living on interest values. It is much preferable to have the same people located on their lands as potential producers of wealth, and as such of much more use to themselves and New Zealand.' The day is long past when Maori land' problems can be solved by schemes involving the alienation, of the native title, but the day has arrived when we must aid the Maori to retain every acre he still owns, and to beneficially occupy them. Only .by the successful fulfilment of that duty 1 to the Maori race can we justify our actions in that regard in the days to come.