THE NATIVE LAND QUESTION.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1681, 18 May 1904, Page 29

THE NATIVE LAND QUESTION.

The following interesting open letter to the Native Minister has been handt.d to ui3 for publication:— Shannon May 3, 1904. The Hon. Jamie© Carroll Native Minister, Wellington. Sir, —Hating been confined', by indisposition, to the houise for some time, I have occupied myself by reading two volume© of “Hansard” reports for the years 1858 to 1863 inclusive, and the perusal of these old debates has powerfully reawakened in me thoughts which have of cen passed through ray mind concerning the relation© which, on just and ckihstian principles, should exist between colonists and Maoris. Looking over whait was ©aid in those Parliaments, I am forcibly struck by the circumstance that although some of the members had been in the colony for over 20 years, and although there were many professed friends, and I hope some real friends, alike cf Maoris and colonists, in those Parliaments, and although by far the greater part of the business discussed related to “native affairs,” anu although the speeches were very numerous and of great length, not cine oi tue many speakers, on any side, struck clearly or strongly a note of what the commonest British instinct would regard as the true score of the relations of colonist and Maoris. THE TREATY OF WAITANGI was signed in 1840. Almost lin- the same breath, Her Majesty authorisea by charter to the New' Zealand Company, the regular colonisation ot New Zealand. Whatsoever may have been the opinion of individual men as to the policy of either or both these acts ot Her Majesty, if we take the two acts together it ( is impossible to understand them otherwise than that the colonisar tion of New Zealand was to be hosed upon a system of fair and honest purchase of land from the Maoris. It is, at the same time, to be taken into account that the introduction of firearms by traders and other’s, 20 to 25 years before the date of the treaty, had greatly disturbed the locations and circumstances of 'tribes, liapu and individual Maoris throughout the country, and that by this and other causes common to mankind, destitute of documentary evidence of title, it may truly be said that there- were not many acres cf land ii New Zealand to which there were not actual' or possible rival Maori claimants.

Such belling a brief outline of the circumstances let us take a good look at the position. Here were the Maoris collectively owners of the soil, but not agreed as to the rightful owner or owners of any particular part. Here was her Majesty, by her representative, ready to bu!y land for the purposes of colonisation. Here were the arrived and arriving colonists under charter from her Majesty, standing on the beach at Petone, crying, “Where is the land upon which we are to settle?” Such being lho position, I ask any fair-minded, peaceable British man — What, in these diroumstances, is the first thing that would occur to him? Would it not be that before any valid or just purchase of Maori land could be made, it was necessary to set up some mehns of ascertaining the rightful Maori owners of any parcel of land that was offered for sale, or that it was proposed to buy? Ana this, not solely or altogether in justice to rightful Maori owners but also to provide that her Majesty was not led into the purchase of bad or disreputable titles. Surely that would be the first thing that would occur to any fair-minded British man in the circumstances. And what would be the second and still more important thing that would occur to our fairAminded British man? Would it not be that the Court set up to ascertain and determine title to land as between Maori and Maori must o such as would satisfy BRITISH NOTIONS OF PROPRIETY and competence, especially with regard to independence, of undue or improper influence©? Well, nothing of the kind was done in 1840, nor on up to 1860. when we had 1 to take the consequences in the war that broke out at Waitara in the latter year. Sir, volumes of papers, memoranda, reports of speeches, letters and other documents were written in 1860-1, to show that the war which began !in that year was caused by this, that, or some other thing, the “land league,” the “King movement/ the purchase of 'TOO acres at Waitara,” but on that point I think my opinion is as good as that of any other who has written or spoken on the subject, and I affirm with absolute confidence, that if a fair and reasonable method! of ascertaining the rightful owners of Maori land had been set up any time between 1840 and 1850 we never would! have had any Maori “land league,” “King movement.” “Waitara war” or any other serious trouble with Maoris, nor would they have had any trouble among themselves —such as the former Moody inter-tribal wars mentioned in the debates 1 have referred to. In. the year 1862, Parliament passed the “Native Land Act 1862.” This Act set up an institution that was called a “Court” for the purpose, inter alia, of ascertaining and! d'etemr ining title to land a© between Maori and Maori. The

presiding officers of this Court were called “Judges,” but as the Governor still proposed to continue to buy Maori land, and as the so-called “Judges” were appointed during his will and pleasure I cannot see that this “Court” was any improvement on the previous system, except that there were now to be two officer© of his Excellency instead of only one between him and! land hei desired bo buy. However, there was very little done tmefeer THE NATIVE LAND ACT 1862. But in 1865 a much more elaborate native land Act was passed by Parliament. It is to be observed that in the interval between 1862 and 1865, the sole control of "native affairs” was handed. over by her Majesty to the Par liar meat of the colony. This Act, then, of 1865, was really the first native land Act for which New Zealanod alone was responsible. And! what did the Parliament of New Zealand do by this Act? It practically continued the previous system by which a land-buying Government was, by means of officers bolding their appointments during the will ancl pleasure of that Government, the judge of title as between Maori© who offered to ©ell land and other Maoris who were averse to selling. And this has been the system, from 1865 until now. Such a Court could hot possibly acquire or retain the confidence of any people such as ours. I must not be supposed to reflect upon any Judge of the Native Land Court. lam quite willing to believe, or at any rate to hope, that the Judges were, and are, one and all, personally above being influenced by any improper motives, but unless, and even if they were archangels, the institution of which they were the presiding officers on such terms of appointment-, would falil to inspire public confidence. Neither do I suggest that the DIFFERENT ADMINISTRATIONS since 1865 have in any instance improperly j,i«tSilenced Judge© of the Native Land Court, but I say that such a relation between a land-buying Government and the Judges necessarily produced a lack of public confidence in the decisions of the Court. And it is with a sense of humiliation. I express the opinion that if we had not beaten ‘the Maoris in open war in the years from 1860 to 1870 we would before now have suffered by this lack of public confidence as we did suffer 'in 1860. The Maoris have endured the Native Land Court, constituted as it is, because they could not help themselves, but because we are strong i© only the more reason why we should) be just.

I gather from recent legislation introduced to Parliament, by you, as Native Minister, that it is now intended to substitute wholly, or in great measure, “Maori Land 1 Councils” for the existing Native Land Court. I am not sufficiently acquainted with the recent Act© to criticise them in any way, butI think myself qualified, if only by mere age, to say to you that if the “Maori Land Councils” are by the term© of their appointment, or otherwise, open to public doubt of their Independence of improper influences, they also will fail, a© the Native Land Court has failed, to inspire public confidence, and you will only have added to the mass of dissatisfaction that now exist© on the subject of Maori land legislation. MAORI CHARACTER. No main in New Zealand lias a higher or a better founded opinion of the general character of Maoris than I have, and it does certainly seam at first sight that Maoris ought to be the best judges of title “according to Maori custom/’ and it must also be good to. accustom Maoris to investigate and decide such cases, but the qualities required’ in so onerous a position as that of Judge of title to land, are not acquired in a day or by the stroke of a pen. I fancy that our Supreme Court Judges, though fenced round with all the l protection we can give them in the terms of their appointment are really more sustained in their high office by the traditional reputation of British Judges, as a sol-dier-is by the traditions of his regiment, tham by the legal protection afforded them. Both kinds of protection are necessary. Take away the legal protection and tradition would l not save the Supreme Court from lass of public confidence. Take awa/y the traditions of the Court, and you might have lapses of individual judges into (improper’ courses. Can you give the “Maori Land Councill” this double protection ? If so, I say with all my heart God speed you. But if on the contrary you leave the Maori Council© open to public doubt of their independence in addition to their inexperience, they will surely fail as the Native Land Court ha© fall led to inspire pubFic confidence, and then well indeed if they do not- do more harm than good. Sir, I ask you what you-, as , Native Minister, propose as the ultimate end of the Maori people? I think I have a right to ask that question, though I am no more than an ordinary colonist. My children are here, my grand-ckildtren are here and it is but natural that I should look forward to what their relations with the Maoris may be. It appears to mie very possible that those relations may. not be so good' a© I would wish them to be. I met, in those old “Hansard” reports to which I have referred, with a poetic quotation by

THE LATE MR JUSTICE RICHMOND,

then Native Minister, which seems applicable to present circumstances. “That apart from mugnamimity, wisdom exists not; nor the humbler skill of prudence, disentangling good and ill, with patient care.” Mr Richmond dad not give the name of the author, and 1 do nob know it. Wie are now 800,060, the Maori© 40,000 —one to- twenty. Can we not yet afford to be magnanimous P To a mere onlooker there doe© not seem to be much magnanimity about this “Maori Land Councils” policy. It looks to me like saying to the Maoris—‘There are the remnants of your land. We do not want any more of it. Make what you can of those remnant© and divide them amongst yourselves how you please. Sir, that doe© not appear To me magnanimous. Give them at least what help you can. Fit them up -with a Court wlikoh will command public confidence, and if the remnants are not enough to go round, perhaps you could even supplement the supply in some way. If you are stall not strong enough to be magnanimous, at least be prudent. Take care that the Maori Land Councils mayno t take it into their heads to inquire into the processes' by Which the land has passed away from Their race, wiith result© still further detrimental to our relations with them. BAD GOVERNMENT lias been very detrimental to the peace and prosperity of Ireland. The Maoris had no commerce or industries worth speaking of to be destroyed, but the land itself has passed away from them partly, at least, by mean© which no British man, out of Parliament, would approve, and the time may com© that there will be a “Maori party” as troublesome to us as the Irish party are now in the British Parliament. That taiinly, is an outcome to be avaijad. Therefore it will probably be well to be both magnanimous and prudent at the present time. Anyhow, I have no reason to think otherwise than that you desire to be both just and generous to the Maoris, and in that belief I wish you with all my heart full success. I need not tell you, however, that impartial justice will go much further with Maoris than the more lavish generosity without justice. In conclusion allow me to say what perhaps I should have said at the beginning of tiffs letter, viz., that in whatever spirit you receive what I have written you cannot suspect me of personally interested motives, for I am too deaf and otherwise too infirm to do any more “work.” Therefore I want nothing from you or from any man outside of my own children. —I am, youjra truly, a. McDonald.