THE New Zealand Mail. PUBLISHED WEEKLY. FRIDAY, OCTOBER 5, 1894. THE HOROWHENUA TROUBLE.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1179, 5 October 1894, Page 22

THE New Zealand Mail. PUBLISHED WEEKLY. FRIDAY, OCTOBER 5, 1894. THE HOROWHENUA TROUBLE.

We earnestly trust that the Government will not let the session close without getting an Act passed for putting an end to the Horowhenua difficulty, which is becoming’ something like a scandal. It has been before the Native Affairs Committee session after session, and always with the same result an emphatic request for legislative interference to prevent a great wrong being done to the Muaupoko tribe. And yet nothing has been done ; not that Ministers ignore the necessity for legislative interference, but because the matter is pushed aside by other pressingbusiness. We understand* however, that the Premier has given a promise to the Native Affairs Committee to see the pight thing done, and it will be a matter of reproach if, through delay, the petition is again hung up and the unfortunate Maoris are kept waiting another year for relief. The story may be told in a few words. In April, 1873, the Horowhenua Block, containing upwards of 50,000 acres, was passed through the Native Land Court and vested in the well-known chief Major Kemp, as trustee for the Muaupoko tribe, under the provisions of section 17 of the Native Lands Act, 1867. For many years Major Kemp administered the estate, a great part of which was leased to Mr Hector McDonald as a sheep-run. Although the Major was the only certificated owner, the names of all the beneficiaries, to the number of 143, were endorsed on the back of the certificate, as provided by the Act. In November, 1886, the Native Land Court made a partition of the block, on the application of Major Kemp. Certain division orders were made, every owner getting a share of the estate in his or her own right. All the portions so awarded in severalty were covered with bush, and had never been actually occupied or resided on by the Muaupoko tribe. This left the residential part of the estate, called Horowhenua No. 11., containing 14,975 acres, and including the whole of the Horowhenua Lake, quite intact. The tribe having determined to keep this portion of the tribal estate unbroken as a permanent home for the people, declined to have it partitioned, and moved the Court to order a certificate of title, as before, in the name of Major Kemp. At this stage of the case an application was made on behalf the Hunia family to have the name of Warena Hunia joined with Kemp in the certificate. To this Major Kemp assented, and the order was made accordingly, there being no dissentient. In February, 1890, another sitting of the Court took place at Palmerston North, when the Horowhenua case came on again for partition. Then the tribe discovered that by the operation of law the supposed trustees had become actual owners of the land: that, without any such intention on their part, they had divested themselves of their ancestral home —that their houses, their cultivations, their burial places, and their lake-fishing grounds had passed away from them for ever! No warning had been given to them in Court that the effect of the order to be made would oust the actual owners, or that it was necessary or desirable that the trusts under which the lands were held should be in any way declared or protected. When the true state of the case became known, Major Kemp protested against the Court dividing the estate, declaring that he was there as a trustee and nothing else. His co-trustee, however, stood on his legal rights, and insisted on the land being divided. The Court had no alternative, and divided the block between the two 1* nominal owners. Certificates of title under the Land Transfer Act were issued accordingly. Kemp applied for a rehearing, which was-granted by the Chief Judge; but the two Judges who took the case found themselves powerless to interfere, the law being against them. But in their report on the case to the Chief Judge they expressed themselves very strongly about the injustice done to the tribe, adding that “the issue of the order in 1886 in favour of Meiha Keepa te Rangihiwinui and Warena Hunia was a severe loss to the Muaupoko tribe,” inasmuch as these two men had thereby become 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.” Under these circumstances Major Kemp petitioned Parliament to pass a measure empowering the Native Land Court to enquire into the alleged trust, and if satisfied on such enquiry that a trust exists to ascertain by its ordinary methods who are the persons beneficially entitled, and in what shares or proportions. The prayer is a most reasonable one, and it will be discreditable to 1 the Government and to the House if

another session is allowed to pass without this being-done. We believe Major Kemp has commenced an action in the Supreme Court for the purpose of getting the trust affirmed and Warena Hunia dismissed from the trusteeship. But proceedings of this kind are very costly, and it seems to us very unfair that the cost of getting the tribe rehabilitated should fall upon the trustee, who is simply anxious to do what is right and to divest himself of what in equity belongs to the people. The question does not in any way affect the Government purchase for a village settlement and State farm, except that the consideration money cannot be paid over till the ownership has been determined. There always was an understanding between Major Kemp and the late Mr Ballance that as soon as the title to the whole block was put right a thousand acres or more should be handed over to the Crown for the purposes indicated. The first move was made by the other trustee, in the hope of forcing the hand of the Government. Bnt in this Warena Hunia and his friends have been disappointed, for although the land has effectually passed to the Queen, the purchase money is very properly held in trust for those who may be proved to be the real beneficiaries. We trust that the Government will now see the thing through, and not allow the Hoi-owhenua difficulty to become a scandal.

NATIVE LANDS.

« To-moekow and to-morrow and tomorrow ” —that is what erept on in petty pace from day to day to the last syllable of the time allotted to the Maori sway over these islands. It is the same with us now in all matters affecting the lands of the Maori. “To-morrow and to-morrow and to-morrow ” —that is what a portion of the Native Affairs Committee fell back upon when the big Bill was before them. And we must all admit at once that the Native prejudice is perfectly natural. It is all yery well for the more numerous and less patient race to cry out that time presses, that settlement must be attended to quickly, that its life must be made more pleasant. Let us remember, however, that the lands in question are the property of the Maori people. They are not part of the natural heritage of the British race. All this cry of hurrying impatience somewhat reminds one of Max O’Bell’s story of the English Tennis Club in Brittany, which, having obtained leave from a native proprietor to play in one corner of his field, spied some potatoes in another part thereof, and respectfully begged him “ to remove his potatoes from our° ground.” It is of course perfectly true that these lands cannot be allowed to remain useless for ever. It is equally true that we cannot be expected to go on indefinitely increasing their value by our expenditure and progress. But, notwithstanding these truths, we must have some patience with the Maori, who, when he looks at his lands, remembers two things. One is that they are like the mud of the A estuaries when the tide has turned after low water; they are disappearing fast. The other is that the disappearance so far has been followed often by a great deal of pauperism. The Maori birthright has been frequently sold to the astute European for a mess of very thin pottage with some exceedingly bad rum in it. Shall I sell my land, and will my descendants be paupers ? That is the question for the Maori, who can very well be excused if he puts the question aside till “ to-morrow.” Better ideas are, however, beginning to prevail on the European side. When Captain Bussell, who knows the whole Maori question well, cordially compliments the Native Minister on a Bill which shows that ho has an improving grip of the question, it is well. It is almost better when Sir Bobert Stout speaks well of the Bill, “ because it will be of the greatest benefit to the Natives,” because though the Opposition and the Government may sometimes foregather, the Government and the left wing seem to entertain a hostility which is absolutely ceaseless. These things show that the best men and the best instructed are pulling together for justice. No one, it is satisfactory to see, taunts the Government, as in the case of other Bills, with tyrannously using a large majority. Everybody, in short, has a certain amount of respect for the Maori cry of “ To-morrow.” For the First Division of the Bill, however, no one wants to cry “ to-morrow” and therefore no one wants to respect such an idea. That part of the Bill is the complement of the Validation Act of last year. That measure will quickly wipe off all the confusion due to the legislation of the past ; this one will by its reform of the Native Land Court and all its works prevent any further accumulations of confusion. The fact that it is only after forty years of the abomination of desolation which comes out of rehearings that a Bill offers to sweep away rehearings by establishing a Court of Appeal, with proper safeguards a,°-ainst injustice and frivolity, shows to how little purpose the governing men of New Zealand have, so far as Maori lands are concerned, used their brains in the past. Now that the provision is offered in a Bill, along with others, for securing finality into what is now an endless source of litigation, the sooner it is passed into law the better. The Second Division of the Bill serves to remind us, in passing, that this measure is one of the most succinct, clear, and well thought out measures ever submitted to Parliament. There is not a measure of similar size on the Statute Book which is so admirably complete for purposes of reference. The arrangement in two main Divisions, with a large variety of sub-divisions, and marginal references to existing law, is masterly. The Second Division serves to remind us further that there is considerable division of opinion between various authorities as to the methods of dealing with Native lands. There are people who insist on the QOin-

•, pulsory acquisition by the Crown at once on fair terms ; others uphold the Crown’s exclusive right to purchase; Freetrade has its prophets; and the administration of Native lands by the State as Trustee for the Native owners. The Act of last year provides for the exclusive right of the -Crown to purchase or manage in trust for the owners, and enables owners who like neither of these methods to do as they please with their lands within certain limits laid down very strictly. The present Bill in its Second Division proposes to regulate the working of the alternative by causing the proceeds of alienation by Natives to be handed to the Public Trustee, and by giving the Government the power to make regulations for the alienation. Before it went to the Native Affairs Committee the Bill also provided for continuing the prohibition against dealing in Native lands under the Frauds Prevention Act of 1888 and 1889 —a necessary precaution as these measures are to be repealed. But as the committee has struck out these provisions and put nothing in tbeir place, something will have to be done to avoid wholesale abuses like those of past times. Of the methods of getting Native land into use, the best are purchase by the Crown, and administration by the Crown in trust for the Native owners. The advocates of the two spend almost their whole time in denouncing each other. They are both g-ood methods. Why not try the two together side by side? That would be a better result than the nothing which too often comes out of wrangling. For the settlement of the purchased lands the Department of Lands is able to make all the arrangements, For the management of the lands in trust, the Public Trustee has shown what can be done in that direction.

THE LAND FOB THE PEOPLE*

New South Wales is very anxious about a new Land Bill which the new Government has introduced in something of a hurry. It is a thing which was done in Sydney in 1861, under the auspices of one Bobertson, afterwards knighted. The flourish of trumpets then was precisely what it is now, laudatory of the skill exercised, the time saved in the doing of it, and the benefits in store and speedily. Some benefits came of course; they must come in all new countries from all Land Acts, no matter of what kind. But many evils came, too, and for thirty-three years they have been spelling unprofitable monopoly, until now they spell it with millions upon millions of acres. The moral is that Land Acts require a good deal of mature consideration. The fact that the Land Bill of Mr Carruthers has been produced in a little over. a fortnight is, we should say, not quite the thing for so many politicians to crow ove 1 ’ For all that, however, there are good things in the measure. There is a very large application of the homestead principle, which has settled so many thousands of square miles of country in the United States and Canada. If the Legislature at Sydney can keep sufficient control over the occupation of the land to prevent wholesale buying up of large areas in the future, there will be nothing more to desire. Another good thing is the resumption of a proportion of the pastoral leases, in exchange for ex-* tended leases of the balance of country left, and another is the proposal to invest .£300,000 on the resumption of estates for settlement. That is a leaf from the New Zealand book, which we are glad to see in an Australian measure. It is curious to read that after thirty years the ordinary Lands Department has got into as great a mess, so far as settlement is concerned, as the Native Lands Department has got into amongst us here in New Zealand. It will be a race between the two as to which gets out of its difficulties first. With the Native Bill now before the House and the legislation on the Statute Book, and in view of the temper of all concerned irrespective of party, we back New Zealand.