MANGARIE FERRY.

New Zealander, Volume XVII, Issue 1550, 23 February 1861, Page 3

MANGARIE FERRY.

To the Editor of the New-Zealander.

Sib,— l would not have troubled you again on this subject, only that Mr. M’Ghee the late contractor, in his letter inserted in your issue of Saturday last, attempts to lay down his case that inferences may be drawn of an untruthful character, impugns my motives, denies my statement, and in a postscript wishes to go no further into the matter. As the contractor for this Ferry drawing public money for a public purpose, and according to his own statement, a regulated fare from suurise to sunset—l apprehend he should properly cany out what he has undertaken to do, or see that it is done. It is for the public convenience. I have no private interest to serve in the matter, least of all any political—as Mr. McGhee insinuates, and believe I am sufficiently well known to be not one that usually stoops to be the “ tool” of other . people, as Mr, McGhee politely suggests. As to his remarks about injuring “two orphan” children, it is drivelling twaddle —he doubtless, being desirous to shirk the “ real” question at issue, viz., “ Want of attention to the duties of the Ferry," by importing the “ horrid cruelly to orphans,” and trying on the old and disused ciy of “ political oppression.” My statement is very simple, part of which he admits, viz., I told the boys I should return and wished them to attend to my signal. I did return sufficiently early, long before sunset—as not to interfere with the regulations. This can be verified by the testimony of two gentlemen (farmers) residing at Mangarie, who accompanied me nearly to the beach, whose names I shall tie happy to give to Mr, McGhee if realty he feels any doubt. Trusting for the future he will pay that attention to the duties of the Ferry, which will enable persons wishing to cross and recross to have that confidence in his “ punctuality” and “ desire” to fulfil the conditions of his contract, which will enhance their profit, and tend to their convenience and comfort, I am, Sir,

Yours, respectfully, H. S. Andrews

Epsom, Feb. 20, 1861. [Mr. M’Ghee has resigned his contract, the service is now in the hands of a new Contractor, and we hope that no further causes of complaint will arise.— Ed. N.Z.] To the Editor of the New-Zealandeu. Sir,— ln Archdeacon Maunsell’s letter published in your last issue, three charges are brought against the author of the Government Notes on Sir W. Martin’s pamphlet: Charge 1. “ He suppresses the fact that those opinions “of mine were written in 1839, when my views “must necessarily have been imperfect.'' I suppose the Government did not think it necessary to assume that the Archdeacon had changed his mind since 1839, seeing that he gave the following evidence before the Waikato Committee last October: “ Did you deliver an address to that Assembly [Potatau’s Meeting at Watukn in 1860] in which you expressed your interpretation of the meaning of the terms in the Treaty which relate to their lands ; and if so, will yon state to the Committee what you then said to the Natives 0* that subject ?—I said that they ought to allow each nan to do what he liked with his ewn land; that their right to their land was guaranteed by the Treaty, and that no king ever interferes with his people when they wish to sell land.” Charge 2, “ He withholds all mention of the main “ principle, that the land does not generally speak- “ iny, belong to one individual, but chiefly to the tribe.”

On the contrary, if the Archdeacon had looked at the very next Note he would have seen these words:— “ It is not disputed that the Native title is tribal rather than individual : this is the necessary consequence of the existence of clans or tribes.” And again, “In some localities the community, as regards the title to land, may be the whole tribe : in others it may be a group of hapus ; in others it may be a single hapu ; in others it may be the subdivision of a hapu ; more rarely, the title is admitted to lay in individual proprietors.” Charge 3. “ He propounds as a rule of Maori right of “ property , what 1 mentioned as an irregularity “ that might lead to disturbance." On the contrary, the very first words of the Note are ; —“ it is necessary to say at the outset that there are no fixed rules of Native Tenure.” Ido not find that the Notes anywhere “ propound a rule.” They certainly give instances where high authorities, looking at notorious facts in land purchases prior to the establishment of British sovereignty, differ from the doctrine so positively laid down by Sir W. Martin, that “ At that time the alleged right of an individual member of a tribe to alienate a portion Jof the laud of th* tribe was wholly unknown.” I am, Sir, Your obedient servant, Fair I'lay.

STRIKING NAMES OFF THE ELECTOKAL ROLL. To the Editor of the New-Zealander. Sir,— Surely we yet require some improvement in our mode of purifying the Electoral Roll So many good votes which were on are every year knocked off, so many good votes which are off are not put on, that it is quite apparent that a simplification in the process of rectifying is yet necessary. It is quite fair that the responsibility of being on the Roll should rest with the party himself. If it is a privilege or in any degree a desideratum to have a vote, let each man see that he has one. But as to the displacing votes, I certainly would make it fineable for any person to displace another from the Roll, without giving ample reason for the same; and even objecting to a voter without good cause should throw upon the objector all the expenses attendant upon the defence of such vote. We all require a good and sufficient Electoral Roll, regardless of political partizanship, and each one is as much interested as another in keeping the Roll perfect. It any one objecting to another had to deposit 40s. in Court at the time of doing so, to cover expenses if he is in the wrong, I think objections would be amazingly diminished. _ Old Practical.