WAITARA LAND.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVI, 12 February 1927, Page 6

WAITARA LAND.

THE ROYAL COMMISSION

CASE FOR THE MAORIS. WAITALa, Feb. 11. Tlie hearing of the Maoris’ claims in regard to lands'confiscated after the Maori War was continued before the Royal Commission at AY ai tar a to-day. Mr D. S. Smith, counsel for the petitioning natives, continuing his opening address, which occupied all the first day, contended that the Crown broke three provisions of the Treaty of AVaitangi. Air Smith' submitted that the Government was at fault and the confiscations were unjust.

His Honour Air Justice Sim asked if counsel would go so far as to say there ought not to have been any confiscations.

Mr Smith submitted that the Taranaki confiscations, from Waitara to Waitotara, which came in under the petitions, were all unjust, apart from inquiry number one before tlie commission, which dealt only with the aspect of whether the quantity of .all the confiscations exceeded wliat was just and fair. Counsel said lie- was entitled to rely on the Treaty of Waitangi, ancl, with the whoie circumstances taken into account, was entitled to reparation. Counsel dealt with the causes leading up to the Waikato and second Taranaki wars, the responsibility for which lie endeavoured to prove, rested entirely with the Government and its Ministers. Failure to give effect to Sir George Grey’s decision that Waitara should be abandoned after the natives quietly allowed the military to take possession of the Tataraimaka block was the primary cause of the Oakura insurrection. 'This was not murder in the native sense, but the assertion of . their claims to the Oakura lands, while tho Government’s subsequent threats resulted in a general war —the outcome, of the inadequacy of- the native policy of a European Government. Waitara was ultimately given back to the natives on May 13, 1863, but the talk of confiscations in the proclamation which appeared in July, 1863, was a fulfilment of the native fears, under the Governor’s seal.

At a meeting at Waikanae on August 1, ISC3, and at Otaki on the following clay, Dr Featherston had said there was absolutely no truth in statements that the Government intended to confiscate land or to wage a war of extermination, though it had forces stationed in Taranaki. This was strange, in view of the (proclamation of July 15 saying the Government would confiscate.

It was submitted the confiscations were made not so much for protection by settlement or as penalty for rebellion as to improve the economic circumstances of the European population. Air Domett, in imposing the policy of confiscation, was heading for disaster. The building of militaryroads and the introduction of steamers were opposed to the treaty rights. The original proposal was to confiscate 8,000,000 acres, which was, of course far in excess of requirements. Ultimately, 3.000,000 acres were taken. Foliowing the confiscation a prophet arose and the Ilau Han movement was launched. After their defeat in the Waikato the; Maoris rallied round his standard. The first fight occurred at Ahu Ahu on March 20, 1.864, and the next at- Sentry Hill on April 30. Afterwards the movement spread to and developed in the Bay of Plenty. Tho Han Han movement was based on a queer religion, a mixture of Old Testament and Maori ideals. CASE FOB GROWN OPENED. , In opening the case for the- Crown. Air G. H. Taylor congratulated Mr Smith on liis very able and, eloquent address on behalf of the natives. The purpose, of the Crown representative was to assist the commission in arriving at a basis for its recommendations to right any wrongs that might have been done. He was not there to oppose just or equitable claims by the Maoris, but to help, the commission in arriving at a decision. With that object in view the Government would place at the disposal of the petitioners’ counsel any plans or information required. Tho Government had always acted towards the Maoris in a manner that, was an example to the world of the way in which a civilised race should treat an uncivilised race with which it. had come in contact.

Counsel would differ on some questions, but would be entirely in agreement on the submission that the Treaty of Waitangi was- binding on the Crown, the people and Government of New Zealand. Tt should be respected andobserved by botli parties, and the commission would need no argument to convince it that it was (binding.. While there was no disagreement on the- interpretation of the treaty, there was a very vital disagreement as to whether -the Maori wars from 18(50 onwards were brought about by the Government disregarding the- -treaty conditions. it was sirbinited that the Colonial Government had always scrupulously observed the conditions of the treaty until -the acts of rebellion occurred, and the natives denied the .sovereignty of Tier Majesty Queen Victoria, and repudiated her authority. Apart from those who rebelled, the Crown always was, and still was willing to observe the treaty regarding Maori lands. (Before entering on a rebuttal of certain statements, counsel said lie would call attention to the terms of the order of reference. Under question one the natives who had rebelled were- not entitled to claim the benefits of the Treaty of Waitangi. The- natives who had rebelled against the Queen in the terms of the proviso of the treaty had repudiated the authority of the Queen, and it was submitted that the whole of Mr Smith’s very elaborate arguments so far as they concerned wrongs suffered by rebels, were based on matters for which, according to the order of reference, the commission could have no regard. It was admitted that it was morally right and equitable that the natives wiio had sided with 'the Crown should not lose. In every rebellion, however, both sides suffered loss. On this occasion the white- settlers had lost considerably, and it was contended that the loyal natives should have shared in the loss. The pakehas paid their ■part in increased taxation; the loyal natives should have given part of their land. But the Government of the day did not ask them to do so, and gave them back their land.