WAIKATO MILITIA, AND THE BACK PAY QUESTION.

Daily Southern Cross, Volume XXII, Issue 2804, 21 July 1866, Page 5

WAIKATO MILITIA, AND THE BACK PAY QUESTION.

We are glad to perceive that the Waikato military settlers are bringing their case before the Assembly in a proper form, as the following petition and letter from Mr. T. B. Gillies will show :—: — To the honourable the members of the House of Representatives of New Zealand, in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned military settlers, stationed at Hamilton, Cambridge, Alexandra, and other placet, in the province of Auckland, Humbly sheweth, — That your petitioners entered into tjie service of the Governor of New Zealand as military settlers, under the terms and conditions set forth in the General Government Gazette, and dated the 4th August, 1863. That your petitioners were not relieved from actual service until the sth of December last. That previous to that date (about March, 1865) the Government ceased to pay to your petitioners the pay and allowance to which your petitioners conceive themselves entitled under the conditions of service. That your petitioners, on the 22nd day of February last, applied by letter, of which a copy as hereunto annexed, to the Colonial Secretary for a redress of this grievance, but no reply, either admitting or refusing your petitioners' claims, has yet been received. That your petitioners, some of whom have wives and families, have suffered great privations, in consequence of the non-payment of their pay and allowances, as aforesaid. That your petitioners are desirous to remain on on their lands, and permanently occupy the country allotted to them ; but many of them will be driven off by their necessities, unless their just claims be recognised. " May it, therefore, please your honourable House to take the case of your petitioners <into consideration, and grant such relief as to your honourable House shall seem meet. Waikato, July 2, 1866. (Here follow the signatures.)

To the Honourable the Colonial Secretary, Wellington. Sir, — I am instructed by Messrs. W. A. Gray of the 2nd Waikato Kegiment, John Brown of the 3rd Waikato Regiment, and John Carlisle of the 4th Waikato Regiment, on behalf of themselves and their comrades, to take the necessary steps for enforcing their claims against the colony for pay and allowances due to them under their terms of enrolment as military settlers, until relieved from actualservice by the proclamation of sth December last. Before doing so, however, I consider it to be due to the Government to lay definitely before you the grouuds on which these claims are made, as I feel sure your Government would not knowingly repudiate engagements entered into by the Government of the colony with these men, and that the refusal of their claims hitherto must have arisen from these grounds not having been distinctly laid before you. v These claims are founded on a distinct printed agreement, signed by the men on their acceptance by the Government agent, one copy of which I have before me. It s bates : "I do hereby declare that I do fully understand the conditions hereto annexed, and 1 do engage and agree to be bound thereby, and punctually on my part to fulfil all the terms thereof. " l'he aore'ement and conditions ai'e virtually the same as those published in the Government Gazette, signed by George Dean Pitt, and dated Auckland, . August 4th, 1863. One of these conditions is : "Every settler under these condidons who xipon being relieved from actual service receives a certificate of good conduct will be entitled to one town allotment and one farm section." From this it appears that relief from actual service is a condition precedent to any settler becoming entitled to his land. Another condition is : "He will be enrolled and required to serve in the Militia in the province of Auckland, and will be entitled to pay, rations, and allowances accordingly until he is authorised by the Government to take possession of his land, when he will be relieved from actual service." At first sight this condition might appear to imply that the settler would receive possession of his land first, and then immediately after be relieved from actual service. That this is not the true interpretation is evident from comparing it with the previous condition, and from the condition that the land was not his until he became entitled thereto by relief from actual service, and receipt of a certificate of good conduct. The sequence of events contemplated by these conditions appears to be — Ist, relief from actual service ; 2nd, certificate of good conduct ; 3rd, becomes entitled to land ; 4th, authorised to take possession of the land to which he has become entitled. Until the happening of the latter event, which cannot occur until the three former have occurred, he is entitled to pay, rations, and allowances. This interpretation ftirther appears to be the correct one from the condition that until the men were relieved from actual service they could not possibly take possession of their farm land, lying in many cases over 20 miles distant from the scene of then* duties, the camp, from whence they dared not absent themselves. The proclamation of sth December,- 1565, taken in connection with gene al order No. 5, of 4th March, 1865, which states that the officers and men "will still remain upon actual service subject to the provisions of the Military Act and Articles of War, and will be liable at any moment to be called out for consecutive duty," is conclusive of the fact that until sth December, 1865, the men were not relieved from actual service. It is nrged, however, ns I understand, that because in March last the lands were ba'lotted for and selected by those settlers, and many of them then took possession of the town acres selected by them, they then ceased to have right to pay rationp, &c , on the ground that they were then "authorised by the Government to take possession of their land." Tn reply to this, I would observe, fir--t, that it was not their land until* they became entitled to it by relieffrom actual service — misconduct prior to relief from actual seivice would Lave forfeited all their claim ; whereas* misconduct after such relief would nob affect their title to the lan I, which had then alrea Jy vested. N*xt, I would remark that although they in March selected their lands, and m sorre instances have since occupied the town lands so selected, they were never "authorised by the Government" to take possession. No certificates of occupation were issued, no proclamation published, no public Announcement made authorising them to take possession. No possession was taken of their farm lands. Their taking possession of the town acres was simply permitted by the Government ; and in some instanced that permission was withdrawn, aud men removed from the lots on which they had settled ; which could not have occurred had they once been lawfully authorised to tuke possession, and become "entitled" to the laud. That the selection and occupation in Marohlast wasnot an authorisation by the Government, appears almost to be recognised by the proclamation of sth December, which recites that various officers, &c, " have now been authorised to take possession of their land." No doubt others of the conditions speak of the rights and duties of thes* settlers " after taking possession," but that possession must mean legal possession under the authorisation of the Government, consequent on their becoming " entitled " to the land upon relief from actual service. The Honourable Minister for Colonial Defence, in his letter to Colonel Harrington of 30th December last, relative to this matter, seems to take up the position that these settlers were only entitled to such pay and on the same conditions as other Aucklaud Militia; and that because the Auckland militia, while on actual, servioe, but not doing any duty, were not receiving pay, therefore these military settlers were not entitled to pay. This doctrine, though apparently countenanced by the word "accordingly " in the condition before quoted, is evidently erroneous, from the wording of the similar condition as published io the Government Gazette, which says — "11. Each man according to his rank will be entitled to pay, and rations until he is authorised," &c, without reference to the conditions under which the Auckland militia are entitled to their pay, &c. In a note to this condition are specified the particulars of pay, ration?, and allowances referred to. The doctrine of the Defence Minister would necessarily imply that these men might have been brought to this country, kept in the Waikato on actual service, with all the restrictions and liabilities of men on active service, but iiot doing any duty, not placed on thetr land, and yet be entitled to no pay, «fee. Such a doctrine would be manifestly absurd and contrary to the spirit of the conditions, and, however applicable to militia men in the neighbourhood of their own homes, would be manifestly to the circumstances in which these military settlers were placed, unable to move about or obtain.other employ-, ment when not doing any duty. Upon these grounda 1 have' respectively to urge that these men . have a legal right to their pay, rations, and allowances till relieved from actual ser' vice on sth December last, and have to request that, the opiniou of the Honorable Attorney-General be tken thereon. As any of the men, with their wives and-families, are «uff»ring severe privations from the withholding

of their pay .ami allowance-! since March last, I hire to beg your very eailiest attention to thi-> matter, and your reply at your earliest conve lience. I enclose a copy of tin clam s of the three mcli vidmls whose name* I hate mentioned. — I have, &c , Thomas B. Gillie-!. Auckland, July 22, 1860.