THE HOROWHENUA BLOCK.

Evening Post, Volume L, Issue 52, 29 August 1895, Page 3

THE HOROWHENUA BLOCK.

TO THE IDIVOK. Sib— ln justioe to my clients, who are calculated to be seriously prejudiced if the report of this matter contained in your issue of last night is allowed to pass without comment, I am sure you will allow me cpaao for a few words. The matter now in dispute originally came" before Jndge Maokay, in June, 1894. No counsel appeared in the case, the natives oonduoting the matter for themselves, and Judge Maokay, after a patient hearing, gave judgment for the descendants of Te Hitan for jnst so mnoh as the descendants of Te Whatanui agreed to give them. His reasons are as follows : — "Evidence has been taken at length on the subject, and during the course of the enquiry it has been ascertained that the descendants of Te Hitau, the sister of Te Whatanui, "olaim a right to be considered in the matter, as they" occupied the land formerly with Te Whatanui and his family, and have oontinned in possession ever since. It is also olaimed on their behalf that Watene Tiwaewae, the brother of Hineporoangi, whose family is preferring a claim to the land, took an active part in opposing the Muaupoko attempt to put Te Whatanui's people off the land, and was instrumental in bringing about a settlement of the dispute whioh ultimately led to the 1200 acres being set apart. The Court is now of opinion, notwithstanding Watene's attitude in the matter, that Meeha Keepa and the Muaupoko tribe were influenced to a great extent in setting apart this land by the remambranoe of tie faot that it was through the instrumentality of Te Whatanui that the Muaupoko retained possession of the kind. At the time Te Bauparaaha waß deporting the Muaupoko tribe on every occasion with the intention of exterminating them, and if it had not been for the circumstances associated with the occupation of the land by Te Whatanui conjointly with .the Muaupoko in former times, proUtbly Te Keepa wonld not have ooLbcnttd to make -tetms with his opponents, as the Court had awarded the whole of the Horowhenua Block to himself And his people." The Native Land Court of Appeal did not dissent from this view of Jndge Maokay, whioh was directly confirmed by Major Kemp. Possibly Sir Donald M'Lean may have made a mistake in the matter. ' He wished to settle a dispute; aud may have thought he was getting the land for the persons who were disputing; but the point is not whom Sir Donald M'Lean wished to participate, but to whom did the Muaupoko and Major Kemp intend to give the land. I certainly did not hear the remarks attributed to his Honour the Chief Justice " expressing regret that the proceedings had been taken, and intimating that the KxeontiTO would probably interfere to prevent what was obviously a .misoarriage of justioe." What he did say was :— " So far as I oan ■cc it is a matter for regret that this application should be made, for it Beems highly probable that the Executive Government will be asked to enlarge the s_cope of the enquiry, and that that application will be ■uooesßiul. If that should be so, there seems no reason to doubt that the decision of the Native Land Court as altered by the Appellate Court will be given on the new enquiry, and so considerable expense, delay, and other trouble be caused without prospect of any advantage." And it must not be lost sight of that his Honour was speaking on an ex parte onesided statement of the case by the de-fendants,-whioh was utterly irrelevant to the matter in question, and which was only introduced for the purpose of improperly prejudicing the decision in the point of law submitted. I am surprised to hear application is to be made to the £xeontive, as I understood an appeal was contemplated. Probably we shall have both, and poslibly, also, an appeal to Parliament. Horowhenua, like another famous block, seems doomed to feed the legal fraternity. I am, &0., P. E. Baldwin. Wellington, 28th August.