COL. RUSSELL AND HIS DEFENDER.

Hawke's Bay Times, Volume II, Issue 57, 31 July 1862, Page 6 (Supplement)

COL. RUSSELL AND HIS DEFENDER.

To the Editor of the Haivlce's Bay Times. Sin.—With your leave I again refer to the Awapuni case, and Justus’ letter in defence of the presiding magistrate, (the hon. A. H. Russell). First, as to the legality of constituting a Court. There can be no doubt of his power to hold a Court. He has been gazetted a Resident Magistrate, and a Justice of the Peace for the Colony, and as such could sit and decide cases in Stewart’s Island, if necessary, as well as at Auckland or Napier. Our Ahuriri settlers allowed his appointments to pass unchallenged, and it is too late to find fault now that he begins to use his power. But of his wisdom Or 'prudence iu adjudicating a case under the Land Purchase Ordinance, while he is himself practically a breaker of both letter and spirit of that Ordinance, there cannot be two opinions. Justus wisely ignores this point. Could not he prove that this part of the performance was all right ? _ I partly agree with Justus on this point, that it is a far-fetched idea to suppose the “niinistry” moved in the matter for the sake of weakening Mr. Colenso’s opposition. On the contrary, I believe the ministry are acute enough to know that if they had anything to fear from him before, they could not have done anything more likely to increase the danger than the making him a sort of public martyr as in this instance. To me, their conduct is consistent with the policy they have introduced. It is only another act in the great performance, and bears a likeness to the 'injustice perpetrated on the Shirleys at Puketapu' under the supervision of Mr. Crosbie Ward. Despite Justus’ defence, I maintain that it is not simply a case between “ the Mission, the Maori, and Mr. Colenso but a case of greater importance, one act of a series, all tending one way, “to the resumption of land, or the forcing of additional payment from us,” and as such it is an act of ngm-cs-siou by the Maori against the Pakeha. Justus says the land had never changed owners (in the eye of the law) but was still native land, inasmuch as the Mission Society had not taken out a Crown Grant; here I differ from him in toio, as I believe that, according to the statute law of the colony, all land over which tire Maori title has been extinguished, (no matter who is the agent or purchaser), is de facto Crown Land, or, in other words, the property of the public, the Crown being the Trustee for the community. Such I believe to be the law r of the Colony, and as such the Awapuni Mission Station was Crown Land, and the Government could have rogranted it to the Maoris if they had thought proper, and probably would have done so but for Mr. Colenso’s improvements, as (by custom, if not by law) they would be bound to allow him a reasonable compensation for bis immoveables, when granting *the land to others. Justus says “The occupation of the land by the Maoris is fair and equitable.” My reply is, “If reason or equity guided the Maori at all, they would not seek to obtain Mr. Colonso’s improvements without paying for them.” For be it remembered that it is the improvements, not the land, that is at stake. No one would support Mr. Colenso in a claim to the land, were he to assert such a claim, which he does not. The conduct of the Trustees of the Mission is despicable; bad they taken up a grant for the land, and then proceeded “ according to law ” against Mr. Colenso, no one could have blamed them, and, in all probability Justice would have been done to all parties ; but whatever fault Mr. Colenso may have committed, it surely was not their place to conspire with the Government, and seek to hand him over to the tender mercies of the Maori: for that is really what was attempted. Justus admits this much by inference, when he says “ the question of compensation was another matter, with which Col. Russell was not called upon to dealand further not venturing “ an opinion as to whether Mr. Colenso may or may not induce the Maori to meet his views on the subject” (of compensation). That is indeed a rich idea! Will any one in the colony; nay, will any one in England, be green enongh to imagine that the natives will ever think of meeting Mr. Colcnso’s views on the subject? Certainly no one acquainted with the Maori character will ever suppose such au event possible. The Maori might have had possession long ago on these terms, (payment for improvements), without troubling the Government on the subject. Hence the proceeding is a public disgrace throughout. The Government are corrupt enough to hand Mr. Colenso’s property over to the Maori, and the Mission Trustees join hands with the Government, and share their iniquity with them. The public i.e. the pakeha, will have to pay for the damage at last, for there can scarcely be a doubt that the General Assembly will decline to be a party to the spoliation, and if the decision of Col. Russell is enforced, and possession actually given so the Maori, a vote of public money will have to be taken, “ to compensate Sir. Colenso for the property taken from him.” Possibly that may be avoided' this session, but it is no less certain that it will be done another year.

Yes, assuredly,, if the Maori obtain Mr. Colenso’s property, the public -will have to pay the cost; but that being everybody’s business in general is nobody’s business in particular. But there is another question forced on our notice by this case. The unconstitutional practice of “packing the bench,” for that is the plain English for the constituting a special Court to decide a special case, as in the Shirley’s case, and now in Mr. Colenso’s. This practice is directly opposed to the genius of our institutions. It is worthy an Autocrat of Eussia or Austria, a fitting system for despots to use to crush their opponents. Under such a system no man is safe who offends the Government of the day. The dispensers of places and salaries will never be at a loss tor tools to carry out their views The best practical prevention to tyranny, whether under an absolute ruler, or disguised under the cloak of democracy and universal suffrage, (for tyranny can exist under either form), is the jury system adopted by our forefathers. That system is considered too cumbrous and expensive for modern society, and no one can deny that it involves a considerable amount of inconvenience; but it may be worth while asking ourselves whether the old system, with all thetroubleandannoyaneeattending it, was not preferable to the modern system, of which we have lately had such examples. Justus concludes by stating that “ from the light in which he views the question, there was nothing unfair or iniquitous in the proceedings my conclusion is, that it was iniquitous from first to last; in the constitution of its Court, and in the personnel of its composition ; in the fact that one lawbreaker judged and condemned another; and is another practical lesson to the Maori that we are so much afraid of them, that they have only to hully us to obtain whatever they desire. Yours, &c., A SAXON. July 18th, 1862.