New Zealand Mail. PUBLISHED WEEKLY. SATURDAY, OCTOBER 9, 1875. NATIVE LANDS ADMINISTRATION

New Zealand Mail, Issue 213, 9 October 1875, Page 12

New Zealand Mail. PUBLISHED WEEKLY. SATURDAY, OCTOBER 9, 1875. NATIVE LANDS ADMINISTRATION

Sir George Grey has given notice that he will move the following resolution, on the motion for going into Committee of Supply:—“That the purchase or leasing “ of native lands for, or by private indi- “ viduals, through the instrumentality of “ paid officers of the Government, or by “ such officers on their own account, is con- “ trary to the public interest, and that it “ is desirable that the subject should be “ considered next session, with a view to “ enacting that all such lands so pur- “ chased or leased since the date of the “ passing of the Immigration and Public “ Works Act, 1870, should be taken and “ deemed to bo part of the public estate, “ the colony refunding to such purchasers “ all sums proved to have been properly “ expended by them in the purchase of “ such lands.” One has some difficulty in believing that fsir George Grey is serious in this matter. The terms of his motion, however, leave no room for doubt on the subject. The motion is divisable into two parts. The first affirms a principle similar to that which the Legislative

Council has already affirmed, namely, that public officers should not act as agents for private individuals in the purchaso of native lands, or on their own account contrary to the public interest. As a general proposition we agree with this, but Sir George is not content with it. He proceeds to apply the principle to particular cases, but we think we are right in the surmise that there is only ono gentleman connected with the Government to whom it could apply. Not that in this particular case either private or public interests have suffered. But we shall assume that the practice lias been as Sir George Grey implies. What then ! If these purchases are illegal, or if there is the element of fraud connected with them, by all means let justice bo done ; but if they are quite legal and equitable, why should the State confiscate the property of individuals, refunding them “all sums proved to have been properly expended by them in the purchase of such lands 1” Does it not occur to Sir George that this is rather a high - handed and tyrannous proposal, seriously interfering with the happiness and liberty of the people, and calculated to set class against class 1 To our minds this would be the direct effect of it. We have no hesitation in saying that a more mischievous proposal could hardly be made. It is going back to the old Land Purchase Ordinance and the confiscating policy of the early days, when the Government, under pretence of law, seized upon the land of the early settlers, sold it for revenue purposes, and did not compensate the natives, who were stated to have been cheated, or the Europeans whose ill-gotten estates they took. Doubtless Sir George Grey proposes to refund so much of the purchase money as may be found to have been properly spent in acquiring the land, but this proviso is so ambiguous as to render it an exceedingly slippery principle to deal with. We do not think Sir George Grey' contemplates carrying the motion as it stands. We think, however, that if amended by striking out the latter part, the motion might be accepted as an instruction to the Government for the future. But if we are to go into every transaction in native land, and inquire what proportion of the purchase money was properly spent in acquiring it, w r e shall land ourselves in inextricable trouble. Moreover, such a principle would leave a great deal too much to the discretion of the officers whose duty it would be to conduct the inquiry. They would be absolute, certainly, to the extent of being independent of public opinion. Their sole thought and object would be to conciliate the Government, and in this way Sir George Grey’s motion would defeat itself, even were it carried. Better far that he should allow it to lapse.