A PROTEST. TO THE EDITOR OF THE NELSON EXAMINER.

Nelson Examiner and New Zealand Chronicle, Volume II, Issue 103, 24 February 1844, Page 409

A PROTEST. TO THE EDITOR OF THE NELSON EXAMINER.

Sir — Having been solicited to sign an address to you, condemnatory fof'the leading article of last week's Examine*, I beg leave to offer the following reasons for withholding my name : —

Ist. Because when, by mutual compact, a party is given possession of land, the ejectment of that party by the seller without a legal process is at variance with the principles of British jurisprudence.

2d. Because this colony was formed with the sanction of the British Government; and to cancel this privilege before it is proved that the conditions of purchase are uncomplied with is an arbitrary stretch of authority. 3. Because the imposition of customs duties 'implies a right to possession. The very aim and object, of law is to protect vested interests and supersede- the necessity of force. It takes its stand between rival disputants, and, guided by the evidence of facts, gives judgment accordingly. If the principle of force were tolerated in civil society, where would be that protection to property we see fenced around it in England ? If the violators of a contract are allbwed forcibly to eject, and to burn and destroy whatever property has arisen through a faith in their integrity; if a claim for further compensation, or, what is worse, the plea of non-payment, become valid whenever suggested by the whim or insatiable avarice of a cunning and treacherous people, and whole townships are to be exposed to an exterminating spirit before the law can interpose its authority, what, I ask, can be the use of a commissioner for the settlement of land claims? Suppose a man thus burnt out, whose disputed claim should ultimately prove to be good and become affirmed by a Government stamp. Could he recover compensation for loss of crops, of cattle, and of home? Certainly not; for the right to burn and to destroy has been tacitly if not openly admitted. Of what use, then, would a title deed be to such a man, when the produce of his labour and his- little all of outlayed capital are destroyed ? That title deed will remain a monument of Governmental folly amidst the ruins it has made. It will remain there a kind of nominal or dormant power; for new houses will not grow like mushrooms, neither will crops spring up without toil. Felony and arson in England are capital offences, and are they to have no place in our colonial catalogue of crimes ? It is argued that Bavages are ignorant of crimes in law, and that on this matter they are profoundly so. If even it were true that the savage has an idea of justi-

fiable incendiarism, are we on that account to expose our settlements to midnight attacks and general conflagrations ? Under the plea of humanity, are we to precipitate our ruin ? I have no wish to detract from the beauty or the duty of a charitable spirit; but true kindness is quite incompatible with destruction to ourselves. " Charity begins at home." And, if our Saviour overturned the tables of the money changers because they made a place of merchandise of the House of God, on what principle can we be reconciled to the burning of our sanctuaries and homes by men who have all the greediness of a Jew and more than his ferocity ? Ignorance, indeed! What! Are the natives ignorant of the sale of Nelson or its site to the New Zealand Company's Agent? Are they ignorant of having received value in goods for the right to occupy Waikatu and Waimea? Are their chiefs ignorant of their own personal acts — of their having subscribed to the transfer of these places? To believe such a palpable contradiction is impossible. Some may attribute their conduct to ignorance, but I believe it to be based on cupidity and fraud. Sir, if your statement of the Governor's remarks be correct, there is something about them which indicates a state of mind influenced by feelings inimical to our interests. Are we to suppose the purchasers of land in England expected that, after they had paid for their land, received their land orders (which I take to be equivalent to a right of possession), shipped themselves off to colonise the antipodes of Britain — did they expect or was it intended they should have to wait three or four years after their arrival, or until aland claims commissioner arrived, before they could put a plough into their land or expend a farthing of their capital upon it ? Why give the Company a power to settle here, and tell us, three years after, that we are trespassers on Maori lands ? Why levy contributions upon a people before they can legally raise food for their subsistence or houses for shelter? If we have no right to possession, by what 'right does Government occupy the disputed land with its Custom-houses, and, not content with virtually prohibiting production, add to our difficulties by subjecting us to a taxation for which no protection is afforded? Is this good faith ? Do not let us dignify such inconsistencies with an honourable epithet. Call them " damnable." If it is an ugly name, it is a right name; for they arm the growing insolence of the aborigines with a consciousness of power over our possessions, and give wings to our remaining capital to seek a safer investment in other lands. You are right, Mr. Editor, it is a " damnable " doctrine." Junius Rusticus.