WAIOHAU BLOCK AND GALATEA NATIVES.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLII, Issue 13029, 21 November 1905, Page 8

WAIOHAU BLOCK AND GALATEA NATIVES.

• Sir,— correspondent, "H.W.8.," in attempting to justify tho conduct of the above natives in defying the law, suppresses the most important facts of the case. For instance, he quotes the words of Mr. Justice Edwards, but forgets to tell your readers that the learned judge also said that the Maoris had been badly advised, and ' that,; their. course was to have claimed compensation out of the assurance fund, or to have endeavoured to havo set aside the title while. all tho witnesses were alivo and before the land got into the hands of innocent purchasers.*, The judge's remarks were made under peculiar circumstances. The question of fraud and irregularities was not essential to the plaintiff's case. Tho allegation was levelled at ti deceased judge, who could not, of course, justify his conduct, and .against the native agent. The latter, through not being it party to the case, had no right to be defended by counsel, and had no opportunity of calling witnesses, who could have rebutted much of tho native testimony. The Supremo Court is a court of equity as'.well as of law, and could not have given a,judgment for the plaintiff had not her claim been both, fair and equitable its well as legal. The judge plainly laid down the fact that any irregularities at the time of the original sale "of the block (some twenty years ago)' had nothing whatever to do with the plaintiff's re-cently-acquired right to the land. ( Air. Piper bought. his portion, of the block, and. Air. Prober!, lout on his part in good faith, without notice of any native claims, and on tho .strength of a title guaranteed by tho .State, and the reason why the law and the court -say that the land justly belongs to tho present owners is that the natives, if they can prove that they, havo boon injured, 'can claim ample, nay, even liberal compensation, from tho assurance fund, whereas tho owners cannot, because the laud belongs to them, and therefore they cannot bo hold to havo sustained any loss. It lias been found necessary and expedient that tho law should bo thus, mid this principle is embodied in tho Land Transfer Act of every country, and has met with universal approval. Were it otherwise tho public would never bo safe in dealing with property. Such titles would become veritable pitfalls for tho unwary, and very large sums would bo jeopardised. Now, although the present owners have nothing to do with tho past history of the land, for the above reasons, wo will prove to your readers that tho facts of the natives' grievance arc not as ho would have the public believe. They are shortly as follow: block originally contained 14 "0 acres. Messrs.: Burt and Preeco succeeded in purchasing the shares of 100 of the owners out of 150 at a very large cost; in fact, it was proved and admitted at tho trial that Mr. Souter, for whom Mr. Burt was acting, alono expended about £1200 in tho purchase of half the block. The Native Land Court: made the subdivision, awarding one-half -to two of tho natives for the purpose of facilitating its transfer to Mr. Souter. Some of tho non-sellers complained of tho manner of the subdivision and appealed: but Judge Clark and his native assessor went carefully into tho alleged grounds and reported that there was no sufficient reason for allowing a rehearing. The natives then appealed to Parliament, the result being that a full -inquiry was made,.and the committee report oil that'" although there had boon irregularities the natives were not free from blame." The Government advised the natives to ventilate the matter in the Supreme Court, and offered them assistance for so doing, and placed a caveat on the title as a warning to intending purchasers. As tho natives did nothing tho Government presumed that they had no case, and at tho end of a year, in justice to tho then registered owners, withdrew the caveat, thus practically intimating to the public that it was safe to deal with the land. All this time tho natives were acting under legal advice. In 1902 it was found necessary to pass the Land Titles Protection Act, because many persons had been harassed and put to expense through their titles beinc attacked after important witnesses wore either dead or could not be found. It seems that it has been thfe custom of natives to continuo to squat on land after selling it. For instance,, Mr. Firth had to put the Maoris off the Matamata Estate. Probably " H.W.8." would prefer to, see that estate still overrun with fern and tea-tree, and the Maori dog and' pig in full sway. There arc now squatting on the land in question about 50 adults, representing (through deaths) about 30 original shares out, of the 150 original owners. Many of these have sold their shares. Some have oven sold to both purchasers. Tho land is going back, becoming covered with tea-tree, fern, and noxious weeds. ;• Your correspondent, growing hysterical, dramatically portrays a heartrending tale of eviction, whereas if he had kept cool and had reflected a little he would have remembered that these natives have thousands of acres of land, and being of nomadic habits live as much on one block as another. The natives have taken courage by the delay in enforcing possession, whereas that delay has arisen from tho remoteness of tho land, its injury by tho eruption, the difficulty of finding occupying purchasers, and from tho death of owners, etc. It is only fair- to pay a tribute to those more decent natives who, recognising the plaintiff's right to possession, arb now living on tho unsold portion of the block. As regards the dog tax and similar matters the natives have had to be taught that th y must obey .the law the same as Europeans. • It will bo a sorry clay for Now Zealand when' they find that they can successfully defy tho King's writ, as your correspondent' has encouraged thorn to do. Wore they once allowed to do so there i* no telling what the far-reaching effects would be. y Bi:m.f. and Beau:. k ■ Solicitors for the Plaintiff.