A HEAVY BLOW AT PUBLIC CONFIDENCE.'-

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1270, 27 October 1911, Page 4

A HEAVY BLOW AT PUBLIC CONFIDENCE.'-

Q . TnE heading of these lines are the words chosen by Mil. Justice EdiVdiiDS, and well chosen, in his recent judgment in the Kopuaatnaki case to characterise the attempt of the Government to prevent the holders of A'alive leases, acquired, no matter how long ago, from disposing of their holdings without the consent of

the Govcrnor-in-Council. This claim of the Government was based on the vague and general expressions of .Section 19:; of the Native Land Act, 1900, intended, and quite properly intended, to apply to future leases only, •ivo man who has given the land question an,v consideration can fail to agree with the reasonable proposals for limitation of area, but no man with an ordinary amount of honesty <iiid sense of fair dealing can fail to view with repugnance proposals to take away existing rights which have been bought and paid for in accordance with the law for the time being. The Land Act of 1907 imposed limitations on the right of alienating lands acquired from the Crown after the passing of that Act. The Native Land Act, 190 D, imposed similar limitations on the right of alienating freeholds and leaseholds acquired from Natives wider that Act. Of these limitations no one has the smallest right to complain. Purchasers and lessees acquire their titles with their eyes open, and can have no grievance if compelled to adhere to their bargains. But European le-ssees who have purchased, it may be, lit second and third hand leases originally acquired from Natives, without any restriction as to the right of selling again, have a right to complain when they arc told by the Government that if they attempt to deal with their leases without an Order-in-C'oimcil—or, in other words, without the consent of Sir Jaiies Carroll —they arc liable to line and imprisonment. The Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal have in the Kopuaatuaki case declared emphatically that the claim of the Government is illegal. The motive behind the claim of the Native Minister is not far to seek. Had this claim been sustained by the Courts of the Dominion, there would have been placed in the hands of Sib James Carroll and Mr. Ngata an engine of patronage of almost incalculable' value for political purposes. Every owner of a Native leasehold would have been compelled to sue for Sir James Car-, roll's favour when he desired to sell, and, as was suggested by the judgment of the Supreme Court, no one knows on what principles his gracious assent is granted. The Act says_ an Order-in-C'ouncil may be issued if it is "in the public interest." What meaning the Native Minister places on these words may be gathered from the Mokau transaction.

Now it is proposed by the Government to repeal the judgments of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal under the specious plea of necessity for limitation of area. The clauses introduced by Sir James Cajijjoll embody perhaps the most vicious specimen of retrospective legislation ever proposed by civilised lawgivers. The first clause as printed on the Order Paper actually rendered persons who have already sold their leases (since the Act of 1909), in accordance with law, criminally liable under Section 205 of that Act. Could any stronger testimony be adduced of the unfitness of the promoters of such legislation to govern 'I The second clause as printed makes all- leases of more than 400 acres of land, worth £'<! an acre (unimproved value), granted prior to the Act of 1909— leases which have been acquired and paid for in good faith as absolutely assignable —unassignable, excepting to a. very limited class of buyers—■ buyers who from the very nature of the limitations are unlikely to have the means to buy at all. In effect no man can acquire any existing leasehold originally acquired from a Native if the lease comprises 400 acres of land worth £t an acre (unimproved value), if the buyer holds more than 13 1-,'ird. acres of first-class land. That is the proposal to-day: what will bo the proposal to-morrow 1 How long will it be before we are to be told by our rulers that we may not fell any land excepting to purchasers who have not the means to purchase 1 We hear of a Native Leaseholders' Defence Association being formed. Are we not approaching the time when a Defence Association shall bn formed comprising all who own anything of which they can be despoiled 1 We acknowledge Sin James Caurou/s native courtesy, his _ capacity for pleasing speech, and his many genial qualities, but is it not time that rights of Europeans should be controlled by principles of Western civilisation, and not by the despotism which is necessary in a Maori village community? How long will the people of the Dominion submit to the regulation of their affairs by Sir James Cakholl and Mr. Ngata? Not, we hope, beyond next election day.