MAORI DISPUTE

Greymouth Evening Star, 24 June 1927, Page 12

MAORI DISPUTE

A NOVEL “SOLUTION.” AUCKLAND, June 22. An interesting dispute lias occurred in the Far North between followers of Ratana and “Government” Maoris. Recently a farm scheme was put into operation by the Tokerau Land Board for the purpose of assisting the Natives of Te Kao to become more than foragers on the beaches. The

land which it was proposed should be used was vested in the Tokerau Land Board. Matters proceeded smoothly for a time, but there were rumblings from the camp of the “Prophet’s” few, which indicated that all was not well. A dispute arose over the ownership of the Maori meeting-house at Te Kao. The Apostles of Ratana claimed that they had no interest in the meetinghouse, and they wanted that interest separated for themselves. How to go

about dividing the precious house was the problem, but the Apostles soon found a solution. In spite of warnings from Mr Watt, the Native Land Board’s representative at Te Kao, and a telegram from the President of the Native Land Court, a band of Ratanaites marched to the meetinghouse armed with saws, hammers and meat axes, and immediately set about cutting off some 14ft from the building. This they removed in sections to a site of four acres about half a mile distant, and they proposed to erect a building of their own. The

remaining part of the meeting-house was left open to all the winds of Heaven. When the Ratanaites commenced operations on the building their opponents wanted to prevent them, even though force might be necessary, but the good counsel of Mr Watt deterred them from interfering in any way. Otherwise there would have been a. fight over the building. The part of the building which was removed is now simply lying in sections on the Ratana site. The police received a complaint of the Apostles’ action, with the result that on Monday last twelve Ratana Maoris appeared before Mr F. IT.

ucvieii, ar, nounora I'ouce Court, and were charged with wilful damage to property’, and an application was made to bind them over to keep the peace. Each was convicted and admitted to probation for twelve months, one of the terms of the probation being that they reinstate the building within two months. On the

question of a bond, the Magistrate reserved his decision. The Ratana men are now faced with the humiliation of having to reinstate the building in full view of the mocking eyes of the “Government”

Natives. So convinced were the offenders that they were on the right track that they pleaded not guilty th the charge of doing wilful damage to property.