THE MORALITY OF MR. McGUIRE'S SCHEME.

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume IX, Issue 1720, 5 September 1887, Page 2

THE MORALITY OF MR. McGUIRE'S SCHEME.

To the Editor of the Star.

Sib.—" Crito," with the rashness tbat characterizes persons unaccustomed to think accurately has not taken the trouble to ascertain his facts, consequently the whole column of bis letter, including his quotation from Sbakspeare, is merely so much waste paper. With your permission I will examine bis statements.

: He draws attention to the fact tbat in 1874 Parliament endowed the New Plymouth Harbor Board with one-fourth of all revenue arising from the sale, occupation, or other disposal of the " watte lands within the province of Taranaki," and he then sets out to prove tbat the confiscated land (including the land returned to the Natives) was not " waste land" in 1874, and therefore was not part of the endowment at that time granted to the New Plymouth Harbor Board. He says : — " the confiscated land did not become waste land of the Crown till 1877, when it was so declared by a clause in the Land Act." He then goes on to say, "As it was not until 1877 that the confiscated land was declared waste I land, obviously the Taranaki Provincial Council could not have pledged it to tbe bond-holders in 1874." Quite true ; bad tbe Provincial Council pledged its securities to the bondholder in 1874, the bond* holder would, perhaps, have no claim to any share of the confiscated land. But, as a matter of fact, the loan waa not raised by the board till 1879 — two yaars after the Land Act of 1877 had converted the confiscated land into " waste land," aod thereby made it subject to the endowment. Consequently what was then pledged to the bondholder was not only 25 per cent, of what was " waßte land' in 1874 but 25 per cent of the confiscated land which became "waste land" in 1877. "Crito" overlooked this fact, which is fatal to his argument and conclusive in Mr. McGuire's favor.

j We now come to another branch of " Crito'B " letter. After that fine little I burst in which he quotes Shakespeare, he [ says : •• It is nothing to him (Mr. MeGuire) that on the equities the natives were entitled to all they obtained, and more." Here again my impetuous friend reasons most accurately on false premises. Mr. McGuire did not say that the natives were not equitably entitled to compensation by the Government for any injustice that had beeu done to them in the past. What he did say was tbat however imperative the duty might be to "pay Paul," nothing could justify the " robbing of Peter " to do so. If I put my hand into "Crito'e" pocket, "Crito" would give me in charge for theft. What would he think of my defence before the magistrate if I were to plead that justice required of me that I should rob him to make restitution to a Maori whom I had robbed in 1865. What would he think if the magistrate commended my honor- - able conduct to the native, overlooked the larceny, and then sneeringly turned to ' " Crito " and said—" Is it nothing to you that on the equities the native was entitled to be paid ?" I think the rage of Shylock would be a calm compared to " Crito's " . state of mind. Yet " Crito " » prepared to ' applaud the Atkinson Government for robbing the board and the bondholder to pay the Mao»i whom they had 4 robbed' in 1865 j and considers that tjb,a eDd 4 beutg» a good one any.pbjtctor to.the method; should be looked upon ac'^a iShyloeY wbo •• craves the law."" Surely Mr. MeGtaire'i * contention for the law is not inconsistent

j with « regard *,for justice. '< His contention is that, if the natives have been wronged by tbe Government of the colony, by all means, they should have justice at the expense of the colony, but not at the expense of the board, who have done them no wrong. If to do justice to tbe natives yon must give them back the .lands by all means do so, but be just as welf as generous, and pay the £150,000 to the board in pursuance of your endowment. How strong is tbe contrast between the logical reasoning of Mr. McGuire, and the erratic effusion of " Crito." If the board's endowments are to be taken away without compensation, the board cannot meet its engagements with the bondholders. The Atkinson Government robbed the Board of £150,000, and in consequence the board must either repudiate, and thus rob the bondholder, or rob the settlers by striking a rate — premature by 20 years. The settlers are certainly not going to lie down under the burden. I, for one, absolutely decline to vote for the return of Major Atkinson as our member, the man who was Colonial Treasurer in the Government which inflicted this grievous wrong on tbe board, the bondholder, and the hard • taxed struggling settler ; and who, as our member, was surely bound to see that when the land was taken away tbe endowment of 25 per cent, or its value was secured to the board. We could not perhaps expect this great statesman to consider the interests of his constituents ; that might be too much to ask at his bands, but we were at least entitled to expect that as a Minister of the Crown he would keep the honor of the colony untarnished — tbat an endowment solemnly given to the board, and which ho knew was pledged to tbe English bondholder, would not be niched from them by a Government of which he was a leading member. Now is our opportunity to return a member who will struggle to get this thing righted, and who will not be open to the rebuke which would certainly be administered to Major Atkinson, namely, "You did this wrong. — by what right do you ask us to undo it ?" If we fail to seize tbiß occasion, we shall be taxed to the bone — and deserve it. — I am, &c, Agbicola.