THE MANAWATU BLOCK.

Press, Volume IX, Issue 1090, 7 May 1866, Page 3

THE MANAWATU BLOCK.

t**m&» "Weßingtoa Independent," May 3.] c **• Canterbury v Press " and the *f*Wton Time*" have been writing Moot the Manawatu Block, and dis- ?"■** ft© question whether Dr. **|«*nton has bought it or not. The ***** Journal has published two more 2gwletter«, inserted elsewhere, the ■■**• of which decline to sell, and ?*~«jatal is made out of those proSv?? o *-. o°* readers must be weary ?"■ discussion, and we will there--*littJe I on *« present occa- ?* The « Prese" has already made ?J**Js»n one serious blunder in dealwibject. It has printed which are entirely worth--255? een *nTed to do a good deal of ■"ttby detling with untrue statements JV«fcejwere facto. The Maori 25? 1 we to-day may jrj* ™ qtiite the same character as •*■•«* which we have before combut at all events they are not consequence. The first is two Natives, one being vT""** |» Here-kau, to whom we ?*i► «Bjded to as having kept aL. .jt* 1 °PPoetioii for the eSer w 6 "* ,l ** B ; and the jr** ««teT€e may since have !^**»e inemorandum of sale,as the -"«-.»ta* aniyed yeiterfay brought

iafbrmation that the Natives were attaching their names to it very readily. Then the second letter has nine signatures attached thereto, one being that of Matene te Whiwhi. The "Press" and " Lyttelton Times" both think this a very strong point. " Can it be said," urges the former," that this is a mere trumped up tale of imaginary grievance when such a name as that of Matene te Whiwhi appears, saying that all he asks is the protection of a court of law, and begging us—' Do what is just, and don't do anything like robbing,'" while the latter observes, " that the Natives who deny the right of the rest to sell are not on this occasion all unknown men, for one of them is Matene te Whiwhi, whose rank and character are of the highest grade, and whose name and standing are thoroughly well known even in the Middle Island. Supposing the letters authentic, their contents are very important." We grant all that is said about the repute of Matene Te Whiwhi; but we know that, as a matter of fact, he is strongly in favor of selling the land. On the 14th of April at the Manawatu meeting he came forward and declared, not only for himself but also on behalf of hia tribe, that they had all unanimously agreed to sell, and more than that, he afterwards signed the memorandum of sale. The letter is dated the 14th, and the signatures to the agreement were obtained on the 16th and later, so it is perfectly clear that if Matene te Whiwhi signed the letter, he afterwards abandoned all opposition by signing the agreement. This effectually disposes of the argument that the letter is important because the name of Matene te Whiwhi is attached to it. There are two other names of natives signing the letter whom we know to have been decidedly in favor of selling. Aperahama te Huru has for months been urging non-sellers to agree, and just prior to the late meeting wrote to Dr Featherston to come up and conclude the purchase, while Nepia Taratoa was amongst the first to make a similar suggestion. We cannot go into the whole list for the simple reason that a' copy of the agreement, with all the necessary signatures attached, has not yet been received from Manawatu, where Mr. Buller has been indefatigably working to complete the necessary arrangements before the money is paid. It is no easy matter doing business with several hundred men, and it takes time to bring such a difficult transaction to a satisfactory conclusion. Every mail that arrives brings the information that the work is progressing, and we have little doubt, if our contemporaries will only have a little patience, that ere long the transaction will be legally completed beyond the possibility of any dispute arising. Meantime, the Canterbury " Press " is doing a great deal of harm by putting forth letters purporting to be bonafide protests against selling, when in many instances they are signed by Natives who have afterwards abandoned opposition and attached their names to the memorandum of sale.

[Erom the" New Zealand Advertiser," May 4.] Again the Canterbury " Press" has published, letters from Natives at the Manawatu, protesting against the sale of the block to the Government, and has commented on them in a manner that must infallibly encourage every Maori who has a supposed grievance to fly to the arms of this friend, and get him to publish the grievance to the world as the best way of promoting friendly relations between the white man and the Native. We do not, however, propose to comment on this view of the matter at present, but turn our attention to that which is of such vital importance to this province that it cannot be referred to too often, or ventilated too thoroughly. Here are two letters protesting against a sale that we have been led to believe ie completed in all respects, except the mere handing over the money, and the formal signature of a document which all parties concerned had fully concurred in. Either these letters are genuine, and the report which has been circulated here, and, in fact, almost officially confirmed, is false, —or they are trumped up by some meddling individual, and have no other object but to cause disturbance in this Province. "We are rather dined to believe they are genuine, although, with the " Lyttelton Times," which also comments on them, we should like to have some more information as to " the source whence they are derived, the grounds on which the genuine character of the originals may be established, and the name, or at least the trustworthiness of the translator." The arguments against their genuineness are these: first, that they must have been very nastily conceived and acted upon to have been written on the 16th of April— the date of the last—to have found their way to Canterbury, and to have been translated and published in the " Press" on the 27th ; second, that the wording of the documents themselves is too like original composition, and too unlike the ordinary style of Maori letters when translated; and third, that the " Press" has not published the originals. All these may certainly be explained away; but, until they are,» very grave doubt must be entertained as to whether the " Press " has not unwittingly been publishing something which it did not take sufficient pains to ascertain the reliability. The "Lyttelton Times" called upon the " Press " to furnish its authority for believing that these documents are genuine, but the latter journal " burkes " the question by saying that one letter was addressed to the Editor, that the other was sent to him through a quarter which completely satisfied him of the genuineness of the signatures, and that he would not have published them at all had he not known —in italics —that they were \ genuine. The "Press" must excuse us and the colony at large if we or it do not take the italicised asservation of the Editor of the " Press " as proof positive in a case like this, where the slightest semblance of doubt ought to be cleared away. It looks strange,

also»_that on two previous occasions the originals should nave "been printed, and not on this one, which certainly is one of far more importance. We have said, however, that we were willing to accept the letters as genuine, and doing so it becomes necessary to consider their value. In the first place, the more important of the two —that which is signed by such men as Matene te Whiwhi and Aperahama te Huru—is dated April 5-14, or the two days on which important meetings took place, but prior to the final meeting at which the price was fixed ; and when, as we are assured, on authority certainly as good as any the " Press" can bring forward, all dissent to the sale had ceased. There can be only one inference drawn from this fact, and that is, that the chiefs who signed this letter changed their minds afterwards and agreed to the sale. As the strongest proof of this, we may say that we are assured that Matene te Whiwhi has signed the agreement of sale, in the face of which his appeal to a law court is mere nonsense, and that Aperahama has been from the beginning one of the most urgent to sell. Parakaia is the " big mouth" who wrote another letter on the same day to the same person on behalf of eleven tribes, and if both his epistles are genuine, he must be as ready with his pen as with his tongue—his opinion is considered of very little worth. The others signing the present letter have all been in favor of the sale from the beginning, from what we learn. There is, therefore, something very strange in I this letter—on the one side, it is said ! those who signed it did so as a protest against the sale; whilst, on the other, we have the assertion that all, with the exception of one sorry fellow whose word is worth nothing, have agreed to it. With regard to the other letter, we can say no more than we have already done; Henare te Herekau kept up a nominal objection to the sale, but really was in favor of it, and as for Kore Henei Taharape, he is supposed to have signed the agreement by this time. Distinct information on this subject is, however, difficult to obtain, as the work of obtaining signatures is one of great difficulty, having to be done through a large extent of country, and Natives being proverbially most troublesome to deal with where documents are concerned — except, perhaps, when they write to the " Press," at which times they seem ready enough. From the above facts, we infer that these letters are of no value; but, as our readers will observe, we cannot produce proof positive of our assertions any more than the "Press" can of the authenticity of the letters. We cannot lay before them the written agreement of the sale, nor can we, as yet, give them the words spoken at the meetings, though that we hope to be able to do; they must, therefore, judge for themselves between the value of the two. We treated the first letter which the "Press" published with contempt, because it was so glaringly the work of some mischief-maker, as it did not at all relate to the block under negotiation, although it professed to do bo ; we felt that little weight was to be attached to the second because the supposed writers of it were men of no consequence, and we answered it by a simple statement of facts; but these two productions, which we publish today, call for far more serious consideration. There is something beyond the mere protest in them; there is an indication of something wrong that we cannot conceal from ourselves. The question must naturally arise, how is it that these letters are written at the very time when the public of Wellington has been led to believe that all was going on well. His Honor the Superintendent must look to it that he disproves these more than rumors ; it will not do to pass them over in silence, for the people of Wellington will not stand another Waitotara. The Provincial Council must institute a searching enquiry into the whole matter the moment it meets, and not rest satisfied until it is clearly proved to them that the Manawatu block has been fairly and honestly acquired, with no possible chance of future trouble, and with a certainty that settlers can go and take up their abode upon it without delay, as peaceful colonists living on friendly terms with those from whom their lands have been purchased. The "Press" and "Times" may spare us their taunts and threats of non-assist-ance in case of war over this matter; Wellington wants no appeal to force. She wants this land —not for herself alone, but for the benefit of the whole colony; but she will not bear out a Land Purchase Commissioner if he has bungled the business he has undertaken, and Dr. Featherston will have to prove very clearly that there is no dissatisfied claimant, or the money for the purchase will not be forthcoming. The South may rest assured of this, and withhold their paltry insinuations, which we regret to see in a journal whose views are generally so liberal as those of the " Lyttelton Times."