THE MINISTRY AND CROWN GRANTS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXIV, Issue 8082, 24 September 1887, Page 3

THE MINISTRY AND CROWN GRANTS.

THE MISCHIEF SIR R. STOUT HAS DONE. TO THE EDITOR, £?ia,—l see that in his paper, published in the Herald of the 16 oh inst., Dr. Laishley has made reference to the subject of the Pakekura Crown grant, and speaks of it as " a scandal which if generally known should ring through all British-speaking communities as a flagrant breach of the first duties of a Government— dishonour on the same lines as State repudiation; an outrage unfortunately too widely known, and, like all breaches of faith, sure to result in corresponding retribution." To my mind all this is justly -called for, and I fear that retribution has already overtaken us. I cannot think that tee publio are aware of the magnitude of this question of the Pukekura grant, for it is hard to say how many titles may be attacked on the same ground. Shortly stated it is this : The Pukekura Block "passed through" the Native Land Court, and the result was that a Crown grant was issued therefor, but in passing through the Court made a blunder, and years after this grant had been issued it was set aside and declared void by our Supreme Court and Court of Appeal, because this blunder had been made. Messrs. Grice and Benn had a lease of this blook from the natives—the natives sued and impeached the proceedings of the Native Land Court and thin Crown grant. Grice and Bann endeavoured to uphold the Crown grant, and throughout the whole of this severe legal contest the Government never offered the slightest assistance in upholding or validating its own grant, or the proceediuga of its own Court the Native Lands Court—but left it to the subject alone to carry on the contest. Fortunately Grioeand Bean's title was supported by the certificate of title. Surely the proceedings of the Native Land Court and the grant issued upon them ought to have been validated, and if the natives had been injured by these proceedings, they ought to have been compensated. In suoh cases the titles should be quieted, so that all may rely upon a Crown grant as a good sort of title in the hands of an innocent person. This action of our Government in standing by and allowing its own grant to be set aside because one of its own officers made a blunder in bringing about its issue has, to my -knowledge, done a great amount of mischief to our colony, All these and other kindred matters are olosely watched outside, as two letters which I have received will show.

One of the largest and most influential monied institution* in the old country sent their representative out here in May last to report on new Zealand as a held for an immense amount of capital. This last month I received a letter from the representative asking me for information about a case recently decided here on appeal, and aa to which the writer had been informed that the title from tha Crown had been impeached, and stating that he thought such titles were indefeasible in the baud* of bona fide owners. Now this dearly relates to the Pukekura Crown grant, aud as ha has been oorreotiy informed, 1 fear very strongly that on this account New Zealand will not be selected as a field for the investment of the vast amount of funds at the dispoial of this institution. I have alio another letter from the head of a similar institution in the old country, which also makes reference to our oolony and its doings, chiefly in relation to the property tax. I quote the following :"1 hare been one of those who have believed in New Zealand ; and all the money whioh we have lent in Australasia, which as you know, has been of a not inconsiderable amount, has been sent to Now Zealand. But everybody has not the same faith in New Zealand; and the large indebtedness both of the Government and private landowners has attracted » good deal of adverse criticism. It is the only colony or State, so far as I know, which has made the mistake of taxing foreign capital, and I regret to say chat in tue opinion of many persons in this country, it is not the State which can best afford to do so."

Now surely, sir, these matters can and ought to be remedied, and I trust that at our next Parliament all may be removed. Surely in the absence of fraud there is no reason why a Crown grant for native land should not be made conclusive in every way. To leave it open to attack in the absence of fraud is, I veuture to think, simply monstrous. To have it said of this colony that a Crown title can in the bands of innocent persons be declared void because the Native Land Court made a blander is, I also think, monstrous, and is bound to do as serious injury. To tax foreign capital will, I fear, drive it away. If it is taxed, then a higher rate of interest will be required by the lender, and so the burden falls on the colonial borrower in the end. Then where is the gain? am, etc., St. John's Wood, Edwin Heseeth. Epsom, September 23, 1887.