THE New Zealand Herald. AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. TUESDAY, JANUARY 8, 1895.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXII, Issue 9713, 8 January 1895, Page 4

THE New Zealand Herald. AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. TUESDAY, JANUARY 8, 1895.

A Number of telegrams have appeared lately about the Horowhenua block ; and, as a good deal more is likely to be heard on the subject, it may be well to summarise the facts. These, it must be | acknowledged, tell very severely against Ministers, We do not bring the matter up for that purpose, because the majority of the electors are so determined that the present Ministers shall not be disturbed that it is of no use whatever proving anything against them. They might be guilty of almost any ofience without their position being in any.j way affected. In November, 1886, the Native Land Court made several divisions of the Horowhenua block. It was determined by the owners of the land that one portion, called Horowhenua No. 11, containing 14,975 acres, and including the whole of the Horowhenua Lake, should be quite intact , as a permanent home for the Muaupoko tribe, and the Court was moved *.o issue a certificate of title to Major Kemp, who had been declared owner of the whole block, as trustee for the registered owners. At this stage Wirihana Hunia, one of the registered owners, came forward as representing the Hunia family, and objected to the order being made in the name of Major Kemp alone. Alter some consultation Major Kemp agreed to admit the name of Warena Hunia (Wirihana's younger brother) as co-trustee with himself, and the two were named as owners, it being understood, as a matter of course, that they represented the tribe. Afterwards Warena Hunia applied to the Native Land Court for a further partition, and the tribe then woke up the fact that Kemp and Hunia were the owners of the land, and could deal with it themselves. Kemp, we may say, has always acted solely as a trustee, and has always alleged that he could not claim the land as an individual Nobody understood that the two natives named became the sole owners of the whole land of the tribe, but it seems that owing to some legal obstacle a trust of the nature wanted could not be constituted. A second session of the Native Land Court made a partition of the block, awarding one portion (valued at £13,392) to Major Kemp, and another valued at £12,244 to Warena Hunia. Throughout the proceedings Major Kemp insisted that there was only a trusteeship in the land. He applied for a re-hearing, which took place in May, 1891, before Judges Mair and Scannell, when Major Kemp again insisted upon the trust, and protested against the land being dealt with by the Court as the private property of the two trustees. He was supported by the general body of the owners then present in Court. The Judges, however, held that they had no power to inquire into the question of the trust, but in their judgment they stated:- "But, although the Court in making these orders is confining itself to the matters within its jurisdiction, it feels bound to add that from what has transpired during the hearing of the case, as well as what it has seen during the inspection of the block, it is very clear that the issue of the order of 1886 in favour of Meiha Kepa te Rangihiwinui and Warena te Hakeke was a severe loss to the Muaupoko tribe. The partition of 1886, followed by the land transfer certificate, made those the sole legal owners of a piece of land which up to that time was a part, and a most important part, of the tribal estate of Muaupoko, where from time immemorial they had lived and cultivated." In short, the representation of the Court was, that the two natives who had been named as owners could in equity only deal with the land as trustees for the whole tribe,

All these proceedings were known to the ; : ; Government; Ministers were familiar with every step. They knew that caveats had been lodged in the Supreme Court against Warena Hnnia being allowed to deal with the land as his own. The report of the two judges of the Native Lands Court, a portion of which we have quoted, was clearly in favour of the view that the land had been awarded to Hunia in trust. The course which Ministers ought to have pursued was obvious. They ought to havetahen steps to remove the legal obstacle to the Native Lands Court constituting, a trust. They ought to have defended the rights of the members of the Muaupoko tribe, who by the taking away of their land may be left paupers on the country. \ They ought to have abstained themselves from dealing with Hunia as if he were the sole owner, and they ought to have made it impossible for, him to convey away the land from the people, But Ministers did the very opposite, and in the worst possible manner. The general election was coming on. A Mr. Donald Fraser, a • resident in the distriot, had lent Hunia money, and Hunia could not pay . him. : Mr. Fraser bad an interview with Mr. Seddoa and

I Mr. MoKenae.* To the latter be talked I 1 Gaelic. Then it was announced that ' Mr. Fraser was the Government ca.r\&L ' date for the Otaki electorate against Mr. J. G. Wilson. And at the sam 9 i time Mr. F«w«r went to Wellington and arranged to sell to the Government 1400 acres of the land which had bsen awarded to Hunia, for £6000, a sum <u| £2000 being paid on the nail to Mr, Fraser, as agent for Hania. ij r ' Fraser did not win the election, but be ran Mr. Wilson very close. Ministers it ill thus be seen, actually made themselves confederates with Hunia in despoiling the people. ft Bat the end is not yet The ag. grieved natives appealed to the Supreme Jourt, and the Court gave judgment a few weeks ago. The judgment was that Bunia had received the land in trust, !hat he had no right to sell to the Goernment or to any other person, and hat the money must be paid into Court, the judgment is a severe censure upon Ministers, not by a body of political

opponents, but by men who look only at questions of law and justice. The ■Court has not decided upon a legal (technicality, dependent upon obscure clauses in. old Acts of Parliament. J Ministers might have made a mis(take in a case involving a difficult ; point of law. But they knew , all the facts as well as the judges of the Supreme Court. The decision was given on a plain question ' of equity, of which Ministers ought tc have been as good judges as the gentlemen who presided on the bench. I Ministers knew ■in their minds that (Hunia had no right to that land individually, to the exclusion of all the rest of the people, and that his sale of it to them was an act of wrong. What will be done now, we do not know. The Government have estab- ' lished a State farm on the land, where every man who could not get work elsewhere was to be employed. Their purchase and occupation are now declared to be wrongful. What will the | natives over all the colony think, when j they become acquainted with the details !of this transaction ? They ought to be | able to look to the Native Minister as a defender of their rights. But they I now find that Ministers take part in what the Supreme Court declares to be an illegal act in infringement of the rights of a body of the Maori people. It is perhaps needless to ask what the Europeans will think. The country and the Parliament have given Ministers a charter to do exactly as they please with law and with morality.