WAS THERE DICTATION?

Gisborne Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 3347, 13 October 1911, Page 5

WAS THERE DICTATION?

TAIRAWHITI BOARD TROUBLE. HOW MR. KEEFER CAME TO RESIGN SUMMARY OF THE OFFICIAL CORRESPONDENCE. (From our Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON, Oct. 12. It appears from the correspondence in the Keefer case (which was laid on the table of the House to-day) that Mr Fisher (Under-Secretary for Native Affairs), wrote on August 21st last to Mr Keefer, as under : “It has been brought under my notice that your Board has been taking a very wide interpretation of section 209 of the Native Land Act, 1909, which suggests that any board may “in tlie public interest’ allow certain proceedings. From the information at hand as to the size of the block and the number of owners, it is considered no action should have been taken by way of precedent consent. The matter was one which had been broached with larger blocks in the Waikato and’ other districts, and I assure the Government without hesitation that there was no danger of the boards proceeding on the lines suggested by the Lands Department in giving precedent consent to the alienation of this nature. “It is somewhat a surprise to find your board has evidently gone deeply into this position. It is presumed this section would be of very little use, and used only in exceptional circumstances .vixen it would have to be absolutely in the public interest. Of course, wLnout the information before me, I have nothing to show me why yonr fioaid has taken this position, but it req sues some argument to show that Natives should dabble in such) inchoate titles; that is, where lands are to be alienated before being specially definedl. This course would hardly be considered of benefit to the public generally, as there is only one class, who may be termed tlie speculator, who would enter into negotiations. “Tlie position that we are now placed in is that a Court is'asked to sit to allocate interests that certain Europeans have acquired from these precedent consents. I shall feel obliged if you will advise me by telegram the total area of this block, the number of owners, how many alienations you have given precedent consent for, and assumed’ area. I take it that in your returns heretofore furnished, beyond noting them as meetings for precedent consent, the. areas therein will in no way affect the titles you have given of alienations, as I presume you will not return same until actually approved by affixing the seal of your Board.—Tlios. W. Fisher, Under-Secretary.’’ What Cuided the Board. Having previously supplied the information which was desired, Mr Keefer then, by letter, wrote to Mr Fisher as under:— “I may say that the Board, having before it the report of the Native Land Commission for its guidance, which says 'at least one-half of this block should 1 , when the title is ascertained, be made available for general settlement. The balance will be worked as communal farms by some of the families, or leased to young Maoris from the southern end of the country, who are anxious to get farms of their own.” The Board have always tried to pay respect to it, although not obligatory for it to do so. “Tlie area is estimated to contain 42,000 acres. - There are 707 owners, la precedent consents have been granted, and no dealings whatever have been confirmed by the Board, -but applications have been applied for and adjourned by the Board until the Native Land Court have partitioned the block. Both Messrs Nolan and Matthews, acting for their various clients, were very pushing in wanting confirmation, but were told that the Board would want to know the locality, value, and the land would require to be classified, and this could not be done without the Court made a partition. Upon reference to our past gazetted consents you wall observe that besides Europeans some three Natives applied, which I respectfully submit is in the public interest. “From information gathered I do not think there is a single consent given to anyone but a bona-fide person whose intention is to farm the land. Of course some may have to give it up if they cannot finance. No applications have been made under Part xviii in connection with this block, which is in its virgin state, and capable of carrying a number of European settlers outside of the requirements of the Natives.” This letter, on August 28th, called forth the following reply from Mr Fisher:

“I have noted your remarks as to i7io Board having accepted the report of the Native Land; Commission as an instruction for their guidance. Under the circumstances, however, I should have thought that as the Native Land Act was f ramed subsequently ..it would show that the recommendations of the said Commission would not be carried out in accordance with the latter Act. In fact when Mr Hicks, of Tuparoa, and others communicated with the Right Hon. the Prime Minister on the position, they were adVised ‘that the location by partition of the various interests must be made prior to alienations being allowed to private individuals.’ “It certainly seems as if this is a question which may have to be considered more fully, and probably dealt with by legislation, though of course your board has rights under sub-section 6 of section 209 if it thinks advisable to refuse confirmation. One thing seems to me very clear from correspondence already in existence, and that is that some motions by way of execution of instruments have been carried out prior to the Boards granting consent, thereby bringing the parties under sub-sec-tion 10 of the above section.

“I think it is very probable Government will have to legislate in these matters, but in the meantime the question had better remain in abeyance until after the Court partitions have been made. To make the position clear for me I would ask you to forward me the names of the parties acquiring the land, the assumed areas in each case, and the dates on which the Board’s consent was given.” Mr. Keefer Resents “Interference.” What followed was that Mr Iveefer wrote to Mr Fisher forwarding the information sought, and adding: “I regret that I should have been mistaken in supposing that our Board was a judicial one, and as such were supposed to take an intelligent reading of the Act and administer it according to the best of our ability, but At is clear from your .memos, that such is not the case. In the face of your decision I can only refuse or adjourn all matters whatever may be the result.” Subsequently Mr Keefer’s resignation,''couched in the following terms, was received by the Under-iSecietaiy: “Sir’ —Feeling that I cannot any longer occupy a false position upon any

judicial -board, I have to ask you to ldndly notify the Hon. Native Minister that it is any wish to- resign from the presidency of the Tairawhiti District Maori Land Board, and would ask to he relieved of office on the 30th September next. May I ask of you to let me have an early reply of acceptance.—l have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, Alex Keefer.” On receipt of this resignation, the Under-Secretary then wrote to Mr Keefer, stating that the Minister desired him to express regret at Mr Keefer’s being unable to continue in the presidency, but as, owing ( to the sitting of Parliament, a change would at that juncture be awkward, he asked Mr- Keefer to retain office until October 31st, or, better still, December 31st. To this letter Mr Keefer replied):—“l have no wash to put the Department to any inconvenience, and will be only too glad to carry on in terms of your memo.., which I take it to be in the future that I will have a free hand in the administration of my official duties, for I need hardly say that it is this that I resent.”

Mr Fisher next wrote at considerable length to Mi - Keefer on the subject of his resignation. He said : “I note your remarks, ‘will be only too glad to carry on in terms of your memo.’ This, I presume, refers to continuing either to 31st October or to the end' of the current year, which, however, you do not specify. I hardly follow your statement that you take it to be in the future you will have a free hand in official duties, for interference is what you resent. I do not understand what you are alluding to, for, as far as I am aware, very little interference has been made in the working of the Board.

“If, of course, you are referring to my letter of the 28th ult. in connection with the Wharekahika block, then I can only say that as head of the Department, when I find a Board lias to some extent misinterpreted a particular section of the Act which it should have read iu conjunction with Acts generally, I should be wanting in my duty if I did not point out the position. I think if you look into the Act carefully yourself you will see the procedure adopted in regard to the above-mention-ed block can hardly be conducive to good settlement, or what it is intended the Native Land Act should allow. ‘.‘ln the present case we have a petition now' before Parliament asking for reinvestigation of the whole title, which of course, 'if acceeded to, will cause a considerable amount of agitation by those who may probably claim that from granting a precedent consent certain rights exist. As far as the boards generally are concerned, they have distinctly refused precedent consent, excepting where the title te the area to be dealt with is within the limitation as set out in part xii. of the Act. I am not clear as to whether these lands are included in your return as to transactions completed. If so it will he necessary to reduce your total by these areas.—Thos. W. Fisher.”

As! is now well-known, Mr Keefer then announced his resignation before the Tairawhiti Board, hut it is not known whether it has yet been officially accepted.