NATIVE CLAIMS VERSUS BRITISH RIGHTS.

Hawke's Bay Times, Volume I, Issue 5, 1 August 1861, Page 2

NATIVE CLAIMS VERSUS BRITISH RIGHTS.

To the Editor of the Hawke's Bat/ Times. Snt, —Tiie question of grass money lias been the subject of more disputes between natives and colonists in tills district than all other grievances combined. It is a sort of stock-in-trade for agitators who seek to curry favour with the natives, their sympathy with their injured coloured brethren finding an outlet on the wrongs of the foreigner’s cattle presuming to roam over the unoccupiedplains of tills district. There was a time when some of the New Zealanders would ask payment for shaking hands with the pakcha, or for his taking the liberty of travelling through the country ; and had claims on these heads been always, or even frequently, admitted, the natives would have considered their right to claim black mail undeniable, and would have enforced their claims whenever they were able. Their idea of the stranger being that he is a sort of taonga to bo made the most of, his many additional valuables in live and dead stock being so much additional wealth to them. They are acute enough to know how much they have gained by the whites, and wish now to retain their advantages without the drawback of the presence of too strong a body of them. To ask payment for anything or everything is natural to a New Zealander (though sometimes partially disguised under the term homaihornaij, and having once succeeded in obtaining idu, on any pretence, is sufficient precedent to justify all future claims. So, having obtained grass money from some of the whites, “ that” is sufficient cause and reason why they should seek and compel it from all owners of cattle, and in default of the individual owners being able or willing to dub up, from the Government. The “ right inherent ” of any aboriginal race to prevent colonists from occupying large tracts of waste I have assumed to be a fallacy ; the “ right by treaty” is forfeited by continued practical repudiation of their share of the obligations by the greater part of the natives in this Province ; but as the question is one which interests natives who have not openly defied the authority of the Queen, and have remained quietly under the “ shadow” of sovereignty, it may be advisable to consider the rights given by that mistake. Thus, the free and undisturbed possession, &c., was guaranteed, conditional on submission, and the yielding of the pre-emptive right of purchase to the Crown. This is assumed by some to imply and guarantee all the rights of a proprietor under our laws. Such a view is inconsistent with the circumstances under which the treaty was made, and contradictory to the express stipulation of pre-emptive right of purchase. Nay, it might be argued that the guarantee of possession could only include land in actual possession, and consequently did not apply to one-tenth of the whole colony, the quantity in actual possession not beinc so much as one-tenth of the whole. But the reservation of the right of purchase being absolute, should be deemed sufficient proof that the guarantee of possession was only that, and no more ; and consequently could not and did not

create a proprietary right over the whole colony. In a state of society little or nothing removed from the primitive each person, and each family, take and hold all they are able, and" no more. Their proprietary rights are measured by their " ability to hold” against all comers. For » few to hold a large territory against a larger number would be in most cases impossible. To demand payment from the more numerous body would be absurd. To confound “ the earth, made for use of man, lying waste,” with property acquired by human industry is absurd. Man’s natural and individual right to the one is unquestionable, as is also his right to use a portion of the other, which is a different thing altogether from what is claimed by the New Zealanders. But in civilised society, each man’s right is defined, and guaranteed by the body politic. He who owns land, does it subject to the rules or laws of the community of which he is a member, and when he breaks these laws, he forfeits his proprietary rights. Thus, under some of the enclosing acts in the old country, each proprietor had awarded to him a specified portion of land, with the specified condition of fencing such and such boundaries of it; if he fails to maintain a sufficient fence, he has no right to impound his neighbour’s cattle for trespassing on his land, while, on the contrary, should his cattle trespass on his neighbour, the latter has a valid claim against him for the damage sustained. The right to make roads through unoccupied lands (and over occupied ditto on paying for the actual damage done), is inherent in the body politic. The right to declare on what terms and under what restrictions stock may run on unoccupied lands is also in that body. The welfare of the community is the only legitimate object that restricts the action or legislation of the governing body, bach individual has surrendered Ids individual right “ to hold all he can” as an equivalent for Ids neighbours’ protecting him against foreign enemies. Whore is the man who would not prefer the small quantity guaranteed by the whole community of which ho is a member to a large territory liable to be appropriated by any other man who happens to be stronger or better armed ? The guarantee is in our ease represented by a Crown grant, which is given on certain conditions. These conditions in olden times were generally cither for service given in war, or for service to be rendered when demanded. In our day the condition is generally a subscription towards the expenses of the public, proportiqnatc to the area of land granted. The conditions once complied with, the community are pledged to issue the grant, and afterwards to maintain the grantee in possession against all comers. The rule of course has exceptions ; public convenience or safety sometimes requires the dispossessal of the owner, will he, nil he, but in these cases full compensation (generally considerably more than the mere market value) must be paid for the rights interfered with. To propose to give to a half-civilised race like the New Zealanders all the privileges of a grantee, without their contributing in the same ratio to the expenses of Government, is to enrich them at the expense of the community, or rather of the European portion of the community. I know no reason why this should be done. Bet them acquire land on the same terms as ourselves, or we must pay for all the expensive machinery of Government, and allow them all the advantages, with none of the costs. If roads are to be made or bridges built, we must tax ourselves for these purposes, and our coloured brethren must enjoy all the advantages of the improvements, without paying any part of the cost. They would not pay any direct tax, except on compulsion, and while we are unable to hold what we have bought from them, forcing payment of any tax is out of question. Indirect taxes, such as customs duties, &c., are a very expensive method of raising money, and can only bo made available to a moderate extent, as, if duties are too high, smuggling prevents the revenue rising in proportion, and the amount raised has hitherto not been sufficient to maintain the “ army of martyrs” who live in and for the public service. In short, the maintaining, of the whole staff of Government is the utmost we can look for from the customs for some time to come ; and for public improvements direct taxation would bo the only resource ; and, as I have already stated, direct taxation would fall only on one portion of the community, the other portion escaping scot free. Such would be the effects of giving Crown Titles to the natives for the large tracts of territory not yet acquired by the Crown. If such a course did not retard the progress of the colony I know not what would. Should such a course be adopted by the General Legislature of the Colony, it will be many, many years ere the white population is sufficiently numerous to be able to bold its own undisputed in this island, and until the whites are sufficiently numerous to impress upon the natives their utter inability to resist successful!}', their submission to law and order will only be of a shadowy kind, something like what lias hitherto been the case in districts where the natives have not openly disavowed the authority of the Queen. The inducements to colonists settling in this island under such a state of affairs will be of a very questionable nature. That hope that this state of affairs tvould not last long which has encouraged the settler hitherto will scarcely avail him under the new order of things, for what might bo hoped lor in a few years till now, will appear to be deferred for a lifetime. I assume, therefore, that it is neither expedient nor requisite to meet the justice of the case that we should enrich one portion of the community at the cost of the rest. I maintain that the right of possession guaranteed by the treaty is only a pledge of peaceful occupation, admitting rights in existence only. That such a pledge must be faithfully kept on our part to those natives who admit the compact I need not add. That we arc not bound to maintain that agreement with those who have repudiated it I have already asserted. Out right as a community to say what shall or shall not be allowable in the matter of land purchase, and in all questions subsidiary to that, I again assert: To prohibit leasing land, or renting land in any shape not held under Crown title, appears to mo to be a necessary and natural sequence to the right of pre-emption reserved by treaty. The advantages given by the treaty are much more than equivalent, to the right of pre-emption Protection from fillibustcring Yankees,

from French protectors, or Russian parental rule, are beyond comparison with the mere reservation of an exclusive right to purchase at a price mutually agreed on.

In conclusion, I feel that I ought to apologise for trespassing at such length on your columns anu your readers’ patience, and remain, sir Your obedient servant, MAN UIIIEI. Hawke’s Bay, July 20th, 1861.