The Daily Telegraph. WEDNESDAY, JUNE 17, 1891.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 6176, 17 June 1891, Page 2

The Daily Telegraph. WEDNESDAY, JUNE 17, 1891.

Wk have received the " Report of the CommiaHion appointed to enquire into thesubject of the Native Land Laws," and, with the exception of the recommendations made by Mr W. L Kees, it is a most valuable Parliamentary paper. In referring to this report on a previous occasion we mentioned that Mr Eeea's colleagues, Messrs Meckay and Carroll, dissented from many portions of it, but Mr Carroll's objections chiefly refer to the recommendation that the Crown should resume the right of pre-emption over native lands. Mr Carroll believes that such a step would be unwise and impolitic, and he doubts the legality of such a proceeding. Mr Carroll entirely fails to understand how, as set forth in the preamble of the Act oi 1862, the Government of New Zealand, having renounced the right of pre-emption over native lands, oan again acquire that prerogative without the assent of the natives. He goes on to say, "Upon equitable grounds alone the Parliament should not attempt to regain the prerogative it abandoned about thirty years ago. Such a proceeding on the part of the Legislature would, in my opinion, intensify the mistrust the native population too loDg have had _in colonial Governments. They would imm-diately discern an intention on the part of the Government to enrich the European colonists at the sacrifice of the territorial interests of the Maori subjects of the Queen. To the native mind, unversed in the subtleties of the law, such a proceeding would be regarded by the present generation of Maori? as simply confiscation. They would feel themselves thrown back in the onward march of progress, hampered and shut out from the many advantages of civilisation that they now look so hopefully forward to, and regard as being within their reach. I think the resumption by the Crown of the pre-emptive right restricting the natives to but one market in which they could dispose of their lands would retard instead of promoting the settlement of the country. Many of the more intelligent and ptudent of the race are turning their attention to cheep-farming and stockraising generally. Thoy are possessed of the whol'jsome idea of becoming produoors, and laudably desire to emulate their more experienced European neighbors in the _ art of agriculture and profitable stock-) earing. To attain this end they fully recognise that it would be wise for them to dispose of such areas of their surplus lands ac they are not likely to require for themselves,and from the disposal of such lands to obtain the necessary funds for clearing, fencing, and stocking the land retained for their own profitable occupation. With the native mind running in this groove, dominated with the desire of becoming thoroughly useful settlers, and adding to the productive powers of the colony, it may be reasonably expected that, with legislation of a judicious character afforded them euch as will fairly meet ttfcir aspiration*, little apprehension need exist as to their willingness to place the lands not needed for their own use in the public market. Evidence adduced before the Commission proved conclusively that, where the Government interposed with its pre-emptive right, as waa the case in the King Country, the natives could not obtain a fair price for their land. The Government offered 3s an acre ; at the same time private purchasers were in con stant communication with the owners, and willing to pay them one pound an acre Need one wonder that a deadlock in native land transactions in that part of the country occurred ? The inevitable result arising from such a condition of things is that, if the natives cannot sell to the purchaser prepared to give them a larger sum than the Government, they will not sell at all; and it will be observed that not even the Treaty of Waitangi itself, or any law passed by Parliament, assumed the power of compelling the natives to alienate their land."