TRIBAL PROPERTY DESTROYED

Evening Star, Issue 19714, 15 November 1927, Page 10

TRIBAL PROPERTY DESTROYED

WICKED VANDALISM PRICELESS RELIC GUT FOR FIREWOOD tl’P.u UMiii) Truss Association ] . GISBORNE, November 14. An unusual ease came before Air E. C. Levvey, S.M., at the P.ort Awanni Court on Friday arising from the destruction of a valuable Maori relic in the form -of a totara canoe called Whakatat araw ur a i re. 42ft m length, which was hewn out in 1874. borne months ago the canoe was sawn up by K ere am a (Graham) Auponri, the sccpicl being a claim lor £7O by the paramount chief of the Ngatirangi tribe, Pen© Hcilie, who claimed the ownership of the canoe. Air J. 1C Kirk appeared for the plaintiff and Air 11. Hei for the defendant. . In evidence Pune Heihe said lie was over 80 years of agc._ The__ canoe was his, and he was claiming £7O, but the actual value of the canoe was between £2OO and £3OO. The canoe had been lying on his land lor about 20 yeais. Had the builder of the canoe been alive ho would have given instructions to 'have it carved and given to one of the museums, but he had died, and witness knew of no one who could carve for a museum. Had he done so he would have given instructions to Sir Amrana Ngata to have it taken away and presented to one of the museums in New Zealand, it was named after the spot where the tree grew in the Wairongotnai block in which his pcoplb had intercsts, all those interests having come down to him. It had been the custom to select trees on the block for ’he 1 11 1poso of canoes, and witness had asked one of his ancestors whether there was a suitable tree on *i.o land lor such a purpose. He was told tlmt there was, and he then gave ir.str i-jibns to have it chopped down. T Jiio had Ken done witness inspected it. and then gave instructions fur it to no bn nglit out from the bush. A; 1 tlie people from Reporna went with witness to tnin the tree of ’nil m.r.cve;sary '■•Mis, but none of the people Irom the Reporna bloek, apart from himself, liad anv interest in the Wairongomai bloek. )\ith teams of bullocks and the aid of the people it was taken to Reporna, where a temporary building was erected to cover it. While the experts were at work on the ernoo witness £ot die cefomlant’s ancestor, Hone 'lalui, to carve the canoe, and others wont out into the hush to get timber inr^ toe bulwarks. This old man, Ho;to I aim, bunt the canoe, and asked votioss to look after it and sco that it was kept through the generations. Ho went nut to sea in the canoe only on fine summer davs. It was largo enough to hold about 14 persons. It was never used when he was not there. On loa\ mg that part of the district he. gave instructions for it to bo brought inland. About five vears ago, when the church was built at Reporna, be thought it mio’ht be a good idea to use a portion of "the canoe in the building, but the carpenters said that they could not do go. The canoe belonged to his ancestors, and tlie only thing the defendant’s ancestors had to do with it was the construction work. On Alarch !•> ho hoard that Graham Auponri had sawn it up, but prior to this no one had ever interfered with witness’s right to it. After hearing that the. canoe had been cut up lie went to the place, and found the womenfolk sitting whore the canoe had been. Ho was very much upset, and asked who had done it. They replied that it was Graham. Graham appeared later, and lie aslccd him vliy he had done it. Graham told him lie had done it because the children had cut it about. It bad not been made tapn because ho was afraid for the children. Not long ago his word carried weigiit, and it did so now, hut Graham was an outlaw to Maori caistmi. IF only a y.ung man, Graham knew nothing about the budding el the c-.innc. Questioned by Air Hoi, witness said that the tree was obtained Irom one of witness’s ancestors and not one of Graham’s, and it was given at hi.s request and to him alone. All the people had assisted with the work. The original intention was that tho canoo should bo built to enable them to go out fishing for tho tribe of which witness was chief. The canoo was not owned by the tribe as a whole, but by witness personally, for no matter how many people helped it was still hi.s canoe, lie had wanted tho canoo not only for the benefit of himself, lint also for the whole tribe. Tho others had no right to the canoe, but they had a right to go out with him when he wont fishing. He had not neglected the canoe, and had not abandoned it for 20 years. Raima Poknc, who thought he was about 70 years old, stated that canoes generally belonged to the tribes, lint this one bad been owned by the plaintiff’s aunt. The tribe was the Ngataranpi, of which Rene was the ran an - tira. It was very hard to place a value on such a, relic. To Mr TToi: The tree’’ had been broilglit out by the Ngatiporou people, wlio bad been paid for the wor' by the Ngatirangi tribe. Tho canoe belonged trT the latter tribe, but the plaintiff was the only descendant of the chiefs of that tribe

Tmnolic 11 imia, who cave liis ago as about of> years, said that since Peue was tlio leader and the only surviving elder he would have had (lie sole right to dispose of the eauoe. To Mr Hei; Pone could not have done that without first consulting the people. The elders paid for the bringing of the tree, and Pone was the only surviving elder. The canoe was stated to belong to Peno, because ofhis connection with Morcaua, .Whakoi. but it was only subsequently that he had heard tliat his aunt was the owner of the tree. Mr Hoi asked for a nonsuit, as two of the witnesses for flic plaintiff had proved that the canoe was the property of the tribe as a whole, and if that were so it would he difficult to ascertain what interest the plaintiff had in it.

" Outside the Christchurch Museum there is a large skeleton of a whalo which is tho property of the whole of tho dominion.” said the magistrate, " but no one has a right to destroy it. T think this young man has done a dreadful and most wicked thing, and he should have been prosecuted. This claim, however, should have been brought in the Native Land Court. t cannot think of a punishment suflicientlv severe for a man who would do a thing of ths kind. Most of ns would give anything to see the canoe. Posterity will be unable to imagine what it was like, and it has been cut op by a rascal like this for firewood. T would very much like to deal with this young man, but this is a civil action. There is no doubt that there was corporate ownership.” Mr Kirk then applied to have the statement of claim amended to make plaintiff tho trustee for, the Ngatirangi tribe. Mr He!: Then who will hold the money?

The Magistrate; Tho Native trustee. Mr Hei said that if the claim was amended in that manner the right of ownership by the tribe would be ad mitted, and be would confine his evidence to the value of the canoe. Giving evidence, the defendant said that tho value of the canoe when he cut it up was about £lO. It had been neglected, he said, and was split from end to end. “You vandal,” said the magistrate angrily. “What do you mean by cutting up such a priceless relic?” The defendant replied that he had done it because the canoe was'broken up. “Tell him I don’t believe him,” said the magistrate to the interpreter. Tho mother of-defendant stated that

tho canoe had been broken up by chil-di-eii wlio used it &s & seesaw, causing it to split from end to end. Site told her eon to cut it up, and it w os now at their home in pieces. It was to have been used by her son for some purpose. The Magistrate; And she thinks sire mu destroy tribal property like that? Well, elm shall be left to her chief to deal wit !i I have already expressed my opinion regard!- g this young man, jind it is non- only a matter of deciding what shall be allowed tho plaintiff representative of the tribe. Tho sum - of £7O seems a lot, but in view of the evidence that it was in a sufficient stale of preservation to he put in a museum I do not think it is too much. The plaintiff, therefore, will be allowed tho full amount of the claim, with full costs.

Some discussion took place as to how the money'should be used, and it was eventually decided that it should he paid into court to await further orders.