MAORI GRIEVANCE.—NATIVE LAND LEGISLATION.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XVII, Issue 5758, 1 May 1880, Page 6

MAORI GRIEVANCE.—NATIVE LAND LEGISLATION.

There is a general impression abroad that the Hon. the Attorney-General has in preparation a new Bill for the administration of justice in our Native Land Courts. There can be little doubt some improvement in the law is now, and has bee'n for some time past, most urgently needed. No 0110 who has taken the trouble to review tho legislation of late years on the subject but must admit that oar planjs for dealing with the natives and their lands have been marked with neither sense or consistency. Every person in power, with an. amazing self-confidence, has deemed himself qualified to deal with this difficult question. Act after Act has been passed, embodying the crudest possible notions —each Act admitting in its turn-the faults and abuses of previous ones, each rivalling the other in gross absurdities and contradiction 3. If we look at the latest production, the model Act of 1873, we are fairly staggered at the elaborate display of ignorance and rashness contained in its provisions. Let us take for example one of its sections in support of' our statement, and ask—Could any person who had read a page of constitutional history, or had the slightest acquaintance with juridical science, have fallen into so grave, so strange an error as to exclude the legal profession from the Courts, and place the whole conduct and decision of the case in the hands of the presiding judge? Such a course iB surely contrary to all previous learning and experience of mankipd. And ynt this provision, injurious alike to the parties before the Court and the administration of justice, was allowed to remain law, in its frigid inflexibility, for more than four years. The inconvenience then was felt to be so great that the law had to be so far relaxed as to permit of the presiding judge sanctioning the presence of counsel. This was conceded by the Act of 1878, since which time the unwonted spectacle of a lawyer in a Native Land Court has been once more seen. Could those in power, we ask, have indulged their whims and caprices in a manner more eccentric or injurious than this ? It is unnecessary for our purpose to pursue tho Act further ; bat we call attention to the provision as a mild example of the way in which we deprive the Maoris of their rights as members of the community, and the outrageous character sf the laws we enact on their behalf. Can wo not all recall the peculiar legislation ot the last, session in regard to the Maori prisoners, and are not the majority of us aware that the better opinion amongst those most competent of forming a correct one is that our dealings with those men have been altogether illegal ? They have been guilty, it is said, of no offence known to our criminal law, and yet they are treated as if convicted of a crime.

Matters cannot—and will not, we take it —be allowed to rest as they are. We find the Maoris in their so-called Parliaments, in every assembly for deliberation over matters affecting their race, resolving, with steady unanimity, that the Native Land Courts should be done away with. "Away with the Courts 1" is the universal cry, echoed from North to South, from the East to the Weßt Coast. And with reason. The construction and mode of carrying on business in those Courts is altogether faulty, and fives rise to every species of mischief, every ind of abuse. The Maoris feel that the law is not equally administered between the pakehas and themselves, and that our present mode of dealing out justice to them has the effect of separating the two races instead of uniting them. There are different Courts, different judges, a different system. They complain, and justly complain, of this, for they have a right as the Queen's subjects, loyal natives, to be governed by the same law as ourselves, administered with equal impartiality and equal ability. The grievances of these people are as patent to ourselves as to them. For years past the Press has drawn attention to the singular secrecy, the ridiculous mystery attending all dealings with native matters, and utterly condemned it. The whole body of the intelligent community has endorsed that opinion, and denounced the system. It has been fertile in raising discontent, and is the true cause of all our native embarrassment. And now we find this confirmed, and more than cbnfirmed, by the interim report of the Native Commissioners. How long is this to last ? Are we ever to offer, in the name of law, not only hindrances to all fair dealings with the natives, but positive inducements to the unscrupulous to practise every kind of rascality. If public statements, uncontradicted, (fe,n be credited, some of the vilest frauds ever perpetrated have been practised in acquiring lands from their unsuspecting native owners, and have been practised with impunity. The secresy with which these transactions have been carried out under the law is alone to blame. That secresy should be rendered impossible in the future by legislative enactment. What is to be done to remedy the evil 1 The Press teems with cases of hardship and. suggestions for amendments. Private individuals (the need is bo pressing) usurp the functions of the Government, and thrust before us innumerable schemes for settlement of the native difficulty. Some of these are not a little calculated to add to the confusion, and bring trouble and litigation to all concerned. In the meanwhile the Government, with marvellous snpineness, does nothing. Session after session is frittered in idle talk to the neglect of the important business of the country. Again we are tempted to ask— what is to be done 1 The present law has, it is admitted, worked badly, and given satisfaction to no class of persons, native or European. Is it worth while to continue a system so uni. versally condemned? The time has come,' we believe, for the sweeping away of the Native Land Courts, and their staff of hangers-on, altogether. There should be no separate Courts for dealing with the claims, rightß,• or. contentions of the Oar Supreme Court has many jurisdictions— ecclesiastical, bankruptcy, admiralty, and others. Why not &dd a native jurisdiction 2 There are no insuperable obstacles in the way of suoh a change, so far as we are aware, and it would have the .advantage of making public all the proceedings in the Courts—a great desideratum. The legal profession have not unfreqnently to bear a good deal of ill-natured abase, bnt we bare

never heard ita . members charged with, neglecting the interests of their clients, or refusing' to aid ; the' Court 'when new and difficult questions arise. "There will doubtless be difficulties to overcome, bat with a learned Judge;: an active and intelligent Bar, they would all readily be met and provided for. The ■ protection of the interests of persons nnder disability, the management and partition of estates, the relief against frauds, the Bale of estates, by public auction, and the enforcing ana administering trusts, are proceedings well known to our Court. A like mode of administering justice would meet, we imagine, every case requiring settlement amongst the Maoris. It would be highly absurd to consider otherwise,—to hold, in fact, that our Courts are ample for all the requirements of a highlycivilised race, but yet insufficient to meet the wantß of a simple, primitive people, just emerging from barbarian!. ' The bugbear. of the native title is now completely exploded. Mr. Justice .Richmond says "that Maori title, according to ancient custom, was the title obtained by the tomahawk." This, so far as it goes, is no j no doubt correct, and shows pithily enough what a mountain we have hitherto made of a molehill. But the learned J"udge might have gone a step further—to" kill and devout appears to be the true test. The judgments of the Native Land Courts we have had the privilege -of reading turn much on so disposing of the enemy. When the victory was complete, and one of the hostile parties "wiped out" in, that way, the might fairly be considered conclusive. But when each claimed the victory and each enjoyed a roasted ■ opponent, a satisfactory decision is, we admit, more difficult of attainment. An additional piccauiny eaten on either side might, according to Maori law, decide the case. Now we are far from desiring our judges to weigh such nice points of evidence, and would accordingly provide that every caae of disputed title should be heard before and decided by twelve native aßse-sors or jurymen, chosen by the parties themselves, —the judge presiding, recording the decision, aud euforciog an orderly condact of the business, tlis certificate might be made to vest the legal estate in the successful claimants, be placed on the provisional regis'ter and dealings had | 'thereunder until the Crown Urant was issued. The our Supreme Court are not, as a rule, overtasked, more especially in this island, where the extra work would have to be done ; and if all questions between Maoris were so decided by themselves, in accordance with their own usages, there would probably be no dissatisfaction among them on the result; nor bo 'long as they were content need there be any approval or disapproval on our part. . The Maori people have a right to this act of justice; they cry loudly for it, and distrust the Government because it is withheld. We are net called upon, nor would it be right for us in the columns of a newspaper, to set out in full the provisions I necessary to effect such a change; but we are fortunate in possessing in our present J Attorney ■ General a man of great experience and legal knowledge—in every way fitted to introduce Buch a ahange successfully. The subject is too important, the interests involved too great, to be lightly treated. We commend 'to his Berious consideration the view of the subject we have ventured to put forward, feeling suro he will judge of it calmly and dispassionately, and that if it meets the approval of his mature judgment, he will do wnat in him lies to remoTe from the Maori people the load of grievance of which fchoy so bitterly complain. T. P-