MAORI RIGHTS OF PROPERTY. Letter II.

Daily Southern Cross, Volume XVII, Issue 1317, 31 July 1860, Page 2

MAORI RIGHTS OF PROPERTY. Letter 11.

To the Editor of the Southern Cross. Sir, — In considering the Maorie's title to his land It will be necessary briefly to contemplate the constitution of his tribe, and the general principles upon which other kinds of property are held. A Maori tribe may be said to consist of two classes— the chiefs, and the plebeians. The former class constitute the staple of the tribe. They are more or less connected by blood, are all independent -rrne of the otHer, but regard with peculiar favor the head man ss being a kind of elder brother descended by the senior line from some name of celebrity dating so fax back as eight, or even twenty generations. The tomes, or plebeians, though of no rank, recognize no master. They attaoh themselves however to »ome chief in the tribe, cultivate upon his land, give with the others contributions of food on occasions of Jfreat feasts to visitors, and help t» sustain him generally' in his quarrels. In discussions on the general interests of the tribe, or of their subdivision, of it, they are at full liberty if they please, to express their views, and to side or not with their immediate chief. The chief of the tribe ha« no privileges distinct from his brother chiefs. He is dependent upon their support for his influence with his own and other tribes ; and therefore will use every effort to retain their good will. Of his prerogatives it may be truly said, that he has no power either to command, or to punish. Sometimes the original stock will have split into two or more branches ; and cases will be found in which there are two, three, or four co-ordinate chiefs. In these cases they generally become the heads of little parties in the tribes, residing apart, only combining for general purposes ; and recognizing by a kind of tacit consent some one of them who excels in natural gift as chief. Occasionally one of them will follow the line of his mother, and take up his residence in Another,

To the Editor of the Southern Cross. Sir, — In a report of the Maori King Movement, and Native Meetings *t Waikato, recently published by the Rev. Mr. Buddie, the writer gives a short summary of events which preceded the war »t Taranaki ; but, unfortunately, some of the principal transactions he leaves out altogether. If the writer intended it as an historical sketch it is defective, because it only gives a one-sided view of the subject. After alluding to the Maori women being sent by W. -Sing, to prevent the survey of the land, he goes on to say, " Wm, King then offered armed resistance, and built apa on the land in declaration of his determination to oppose the •urvey of it by the Government ; on him, therefore, must rest the onui of the war." The fact that the district had been previously proclaimed under Martial Law, by the officer in charge of her Majesty's troops, the writer ignores altogether ; neither does he tell us what construction the Maories would put upon,'such a proclamation, whether they would look upon it as a declaration of war against themselves by the Government or otherwise! If a declaration of war, by civilized nations, is admitted by almost universal con«ent, to be the most awful responsibility that any Government can take upon themselves ; is not the responsibility incalculably greater when a civilized Government declare war against a people just groping their way out of heathen barbarism' The writer alludes to the "atrocious murders"; but if, as is generally believed, the murders would not have taken place but jor the war, the writer has made it by no means clear which is the culpable party, King or] our own Government. It was not the first time the Taranaki Maories had shown themselves treacherous ; they had waylaid and shot down unarmed Maories belonging to a tribe with which they had a feud,. When the white man took up arms against them was it likely they would' shew greater compassion for him than for their own countrymen ? In commencing the war had the Government or lettlers any right to expect that the Maoriei would have acted otherwise than they have done ? It could not have been that gentleman's intention, in writing, merely to make out a strong case against the Maories ; but his account is so manifestly one-tided thai in reading it one cannot get rid of the impression that he had made up his mind that the Government had been in the right throughout, and therefore the/ Maories must have been in the wrong, and was writing but to prove , inch to be the case. An impartial judge, although he may feel no sympathy with the.criminaLs at the bar, generally finds some extenuating circumstances in their favour. Yours, &c., A Settler. July 28, 1860.