THE KOPARAKOKE CASE.

Hastings Standard, Issue 285, 31 March 1897, Page 4

THE KOPARAKOKE CASE.

[To the Editor.] Sir, —With my friend Mr Loughnan " as a rule I deprecate the practice of counsel in a case writing to the papers upon the matter in litigation," but when Mr Loughnan writes " in defence of persons not in any way parties to the Court proceedings," which really means the Premier, I join issue with him.

That the Koparakore Case is not " in litigation " —the decision of the Appellate Court being final and conclusive—is only one of the small inaccuracies contained in the learned gentleman's epistle, but that which I particularly wish to censure, is Mr Loughnan's statement in the second paragraph of his letter, that " the matter of the Koparakore appeal was fully " considered by the Native Affairs Committee." That this was not so I emphatically deny from my own knowledge, but in case I, like my friend, might be depending too much to sentiment or a defective memory, I quote from Hansard from the speech of the Minister in charge of the ' Bill: "Now, with regard to new clause 30b, which dealt with the rehearing of the Koparakore Block, he disapproved of it on principle, the principle being that it shoul:! have come by way of petition before the Native Affairs Committee, and should have received a close investigation, and then consequent upon that there should have been a report directing the Government to bring in a clause as proposed here. Then everything would have been in fair line." That is the Minister's statement, and without disrespect to Mr Loughnan I must accept it as a correct statement of what took place and an absolute contradition to Mr Loughnan's remarks as quoted above. So far, Sir, your " inspired article " ! comes out on top. In Mr Loughnan's third paragraph I, with him, was in some doubt as to what your word " squash " indicated. "I immediately attributed it to the inevitable devil that perambulates newspaper offices, but since seeing Mr Loughnan's and later referring to my " Johnson," I have come to the conclusion that your editor had method in his madness in that he foresaw on the horizon of time some rash person rushing into print and questioning his facts. My reason for this deduction is that the great lexicographer interprets the word, " anything soft, a sudden fall! " With regard to the remainder of paragraph three all I have to say is, that the least said about the Legislature and the Native Affairs Committee with regard to Koparakore the more thankful our law makers should be, for unquestionably the forcing of such legislation through the House on the c.r parti' statements of a single person was a public scandal. I do not speak of any grievance the Natives may have had, l|condemn the action on principle. As to the actual issue of the Koparakore appeal, for my client and myself, I say we are more than satisfied. I believe and hope Mr Loughnan and his clients are suffering from the same complaint. The " obnoxious boundary " which enclosed 13-1 acres has been "materially altered" and now embraces 7 acres more. Mr Douglas has retained all his buildings and fencing, received 10 acres of laud in access of that awarded him by the former Court, £lO costs against the appellants, and if this latter sum is "the small expense" of Mr Loughnan's clients, then who will say that the legal philanthropist departed with the moa'?—l am, &c., A. L. D. Fjiaser. Hastings, March '29 th, 1897.