THE HOROWHENUA BLOCK.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1196, 1 February 1895, Page 15

THE HOROWHENUA BLOCK.

A Royal Commission is to be set up almost immediately to investigate the whole history of the Horowhenua block since it .first passed the Native Land Court in 1873, with a view to the introduction next session of legislation to set at rest all questions in dispute in connection with the titles to the whole block. It is hoped that all the facts will be brought out in this way.

A rumour is current that either District Judge Kettle or District Judge Dudley Ward is likely to be appointed in conjunction with one of the Judges of the Native Land Court as Commissioners to enquire into the dealings in respect of the Horowhenua Block.

ME DONALD FEASEIt'S VERSION.

The following has been published in the Bangitilcei Advocate : THE HOROWHENUA BLOCK. TO THE EDITOR. Sir, — I trust that in justice to myself you will be good enough to insert this explanation respecting the leading article which appeared in your issue of the 20th December, so strongly condemning the Government, and also reflecting upon my action in connection with the Horowhenua Block. To persons unacquainted with the facts it is made to appear that the Muaopoko tribe had no land other than the 15,000 acres, the subject of a recent Supreme Court action. Permit me to say that this area was part only of 52,000 acres, passed through the Native Land Court in 1873, which was awarded to Keepa te Raugihiwinui, Hunia te Hakeke, his family and the Muaopoko tribe. The whole of the block was, in 1886, subdivided, by which process 106 persons were awarded 105 acres each, one chief, other than those named, was awarded 13,000 acres in his own right, and he obtained his title to the same. Keepa was awarded and obtained in his own right several large blocks (other than those held in trust) in his name. From 1873 until 1886 he received the whole of the rents accruing from those portions of the original block, which had been leased to Europeans, and used the money, amounting to many thousands of pounds, for his own private purposes, excepting several small sums which he doled out to ' his own pet members of the tribe, but to vh© majority he gave nothing. This generosity continued until the year 1889, when Warena Hunia justly concluded that he and his sisters were entitled as chiefs with Keepa to derive equal benefit with him (Keepa) from the land to which they had such large claims. Warena Hunia then consulted me as to how he should act in order to obtain the property to which they were entitled. 1 advised him to retain Mr Barnicoat, of Wanganui, solicitor, to act as his counsel in the matter, and from that time until the present Warena has been guided by Mr Barnicoat’s advice with respect to all questions relating to his land. The 15,000 acres were awarded by the Native Lands Court to Warena Hunia and. Keepa te Rangihiwinui as tenants in common, after which, owing to the dissatisfaction of some persons who, had sold their portion of the land (which in the first instance had been awarded to them) and spent their money, they applied for and were granted a rehearing of the case, and on such hearing the previous order was confirmed. Subsequently a 'Sub-division Court sat and divided the 15,000 acres into two nearly equal parts, awarding one part to Warena Hunia and the other part to Keepa, for which they obtained certificates of title under the Land Transfer Act. Warena being a chief of equal rank with Keepa proposed that he and his father’s family should retain in their own right 3500 acres; that Keepa should retain an equal area, and that each of them, by reasons of their positions as chiefs, hand back to the tribe the balance, thus making an area of 8000 acres upon which the whole of the houses, cultivations, lake, and fisheries are situated. The question then arises, does this proposal show that Warena had the slightest intention of depriving the people of their homes ? Certainly not. Does this course lead me to believe that Warena had any idea of depriving others of their birthright ? Again the answer is in the negative. Keepa, howeWir, declined to accede to the proposal, not because he considered the people were unfairly treated, but because he would have been deprived of the right to deal with the land as he had done with the other large blocks which had been awarded to him, and it would also deprive him of the sole right to the lake, to which he was no more entitled as of a right than Warena. When it was found that no settlement could be arrived at with Keepa, Warena, in order to perfect his ideas of fairness and equity as a chief, in accordance with Maori custom, offered to (1) sell to the Government 1500 acres, the proceeds of which would partly recoup the large sums of money expended by Warena and his late father, Kawana te Hakeke, in protecting the 52,000 acres and the Muaopoko people against outside tribes,who were making strenuous efforts to dispossess the Muaopoko, which they would have succeeded in doing had it not been for the energy and ability of Hunia te Hakeke. (From 1825 to 1865 not a single Muaopoko lived on the portion of land awarded to 1 Warena.) The Government were strongly urged to buy this 1500 acres by Mr J. G. Wilson, M.H.R. (2.) To hand over to \ that section of the tribe of which he (Warena) is chief 3200 acres, including the whole of their houses, cultivations, 1 and that half of the lake which had been 1 awarded to him by the Court. (3.) To retain for himself, his 1 rother and sisters, whose families numler sixteen persons, 3500 acres. These above were the proposals. Now, it matters not what the technicalities of English law may prove, there is one factr which cannot be lost

sight of, vifc., that this question must and should be dealt with in accordance with Native custom, as existing previous to the year 1840. Mr J. G. Wilson, M.H.R.j who represents the district in which the land is situated, took great interest ill the question, and (when I was his political supporter) rendered all the assistance in his power for the purpose of trying to induce all parties concerned to accede to Warena’s proposal. He was perfectly satisfied that Warena owned the land and was fully entitled to it, and expressed the opinion on moi’e than one occasion that he (Warena) was acting very liberally towards his people by offering them the whole of their cultivations together with his half of the lake to be comprised in the 3200 acres. It was sought by Kemp to have special legislation passed for the purpose of disturbing Warena’s title, but Mr Wilson used his best efforts both in and out of Parliament for the purpose of preventing this wrong being done to Warena, his brother and sisters. Some months previous to the last general election I had for political reasons determined to support the present Government in their general policy, as I was convinced in my own mind that their principal measures were in the best interests of the Colony. Having previously been a strong supporter of Mr Wilson, I deemed it an act of courtesy to write to him informing him that I had determined to support some candidate who stood as a Government supporter, and unless he was prepared to give the Government his whole support (as he had already by his speeches agreed with three-fourths of the Government policy) ,1 could no longer be a supporter of his. He, however, did not reply to my letter. Had it been otherwise I venture to believe I should have had no complaint to make on this point. The insinuations contained in your article respecting my conversation with the Premier while travelling by rail have directly or indirectly been inspired by one who was labouring under the delusion that he held me in bondage as a political slave ; and because I had the audacity to advance with the tide of public opinion my erstwhile so-called friend has tried to hold me up to public ridicule. Did the British people, or any of his friends or supporters cast reflection upon Lord John Russell when on the 22nd November, 1845, he addressed a public meeting in which lie stated that he had changed his mind upon the greatest political question with which the British Parliament has ever had to deal ? Mr Wilson’s garbled and one-sided statement will be found in Hansard, 1894, No. 37, pages 10S6 to 1088 inclusive. I have, I am pleased to say, changed my political opinions in the public interests; and I contested the Otaki seat against that gentleman purely upon those lines. He, however, has changed his mind for more exalted reasons, with a, brief history of which I shall conclude this letter. That personification of purity to whom I refer (quite unwittingly no doubt) omitted to say in delivering his utterance respecting myself that he had pressed me to. use my influence with Warena and his brother for the purpose of acquiring from them a block of land in the best position overlooking the Horowhenua Lake. I conveyed the message to the Natives, who did not look upon the proposal with the same kindly and disinterested feelings as James Glenny Wilson, Esq., M.H.R., the gentleman for whom that block of land should be set apart, in order that ho. might have the pre-emptive right of acquiring it at such a price as would not trench too deeply upon his banking account. Mr H. D. Bell, M.H.R., who acted as henchman for the member for Otaki, and whose speech will be found in Hansard, 1894, No. 37, pages 1089 to 1090, said that, “He (Mr Bell) had been acting for Warena at one time until he found that the only people who had any interest in the land were the Muaopoko tribe, and he had then refused to act any longer for a man who was simply robbing the other owners.” To me, sir, it is quite inconceivable that a gentleman of Mr Bell’s reputed ability and integrity should have so far forgotten himself as to give utterance to such an absolutely untrue statement. Neither Mr Bell nor the firm of solicitors of which he is a member ever acted for Warena in connection with the Horowhenua Block, and X defy him to prove one word of the above quotation to be true. He is evidently a strong believer in the motto, " All truths must not be spoken at all times.” Seeking for common justice is my excuse for troubling at such length.—Yours, &c.,

Donald Fraser.