THE SARTORIS-DOWNE’S CLAIM.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXI, Issue 4884, 16 November 1876, Page 6

THE SARTORIS-DOWNE’S CLAIM.

Our readers will have this claim fresh in their memories, and also the unjust action of the Opposition in connection with it at the extreme close of the session, to which we drew attention at the time. As we were unable to go fully into the facts at the moment, we now reprint the speech of the Hon. Mr. Stafford on the question, which gives them in full, and which will convince any unbiassed person. On October the 19th Mr. Stafford is reported in Hansard as having said “That when, on the previous Friday, he asked the Premier in what manner the Government proposed to give effect to the recommendation of the committee in the case of Sartoris and Downe, a recommendation which was assented to by every member of the committee, the Premier stated that the Government had not yet come to a decision in the matter, but would do so in a few days. He was not aware whether the Government had yet come to any decision—at all events they had not yet made it known. He had been informed that they had been in communication with a representative of one of these claimants, and that no settlement had been come to. He knew this question was, to a certain extent, embarrassed by the fact of the relative liability of the colony and the provincein the matter; but he held that to be, as regarded his motion, merely a question of secondary importance. He was free to admit that there were perhaps separate interests between the colony and the province in the matter ; for it was no doubt true that a portion of the land which these claimants were entitled to, on account of their original purchase had become through process of law colonial property, and not provincial, and that the proceeds of the. sales of some of these lands had, he understood, become colonial revenue, and become part of the Consolidated Fund. Therefore he was free to admit that it would not be absolutely correct to ask the province, either but of its land or from its pecuniary resources, to defray the whole of the cost of these claims as they now appeared; but he looked upon that question, although one that must be dealt with between the colony and the province, as of very secondary importance to the question as between the claimants and the colony of New Zealand. There was no doubt whatever that these claimants had got a thoroughly equitable and legal claim to consideration. The Act of 1872 might not have been an Act very wisely passed by the Legislature—he knew that different opinions were held with regard to that point; but it must be borne in mind that that Act was passed very largely on the principle of the Act passed one or two sessions previously, called the Carrington Land Grant Act, and it would be impossible, he contended, to persuade persons out of the country who had interests in these claims that their claims were equi t ably and honorably dealt with by the colony, when they found so very great a distinction made as to their claims, which were absolutely analogous to the claims of these claimants living in the colony. The Act of 1872 was deliberately passed by the Legislature. If its provisions were not wise, they should have been objected to when the measure was brought before the Legislature. He was not aware that any strong objections had been raised, although he could not say there were none; but no very strong objection was professed by the Legislature at the time. Then, again, it had been contended that, although that Act did authorise awards in land to be given, there was virtually no land available to fulfil any such awards. He trusted that was not the real position, of the case. If it was, he could hardly find words that would be at'the same time parliamentary and proper to characterise such a downright evasion of all right and justice as such a proceeding would have been. It would have been exactly analogous to the Government professing to discharge a pecuniary claim by giving a cheque on a bank where there were no effects to meet it. He trusted no such plea as that would be raised in bar of the equitable settlement of these claims. The Act of 1872 was introduced when one Government was in office, and finally passed through its later stages while another Government was in office, of which the Hon. Mr; Waterhouse was Premier. The Premier was distinctly asked the question in the other branch of the Legislature as to whether there were sufficient lands to satisfy the awards that might be given under the provisions of the Bill; and the reply of the Premier, the Hon. Mr. Waterhouse, was that sufficient land would be available, for the Government was about to acquire land within the .limits of the province of Taranaki. Well, that Bill became law, and it required executive action on the part of the Government to be taken. And the Government took that executive action. They appointed as commissioner a public officer of their own, and therefore, he would not naturally be supposed to be biassed against the Government. That commissioner proceeded to Taranaki, and after inquiry and deliberation he made certain awards which would be found among the records of Parliament. There was a provision in the Act which required that land orders should be issued. Those land ordera were issued by the Governor after the commissioner had made his awards, which awards were made known to the Government, and were'communicated by them officially to the Superintendent of the province. They interposed no objection to giving effect to the Act, but they proceeded subsequently to issue the necessary land orders to enable those awards to be given effect to. • When those land orders were presented at the land office in New Plymouth, the answer of the Commissioner of Crown Lands was a remarkable one. It was that there were no lands available for the purpose. It was not that there were no lands available for settlement. He did not know how such an indorsement on the land orders could have been properly made. On examination, it was found that the land of the province consisted mainly of two classes—one class, that obtained under the New Settlements Act, and which was commonly called confiscated laud; and the other class, that obtained under the provisions of the Immigration and Public Works Act. It was true that in the Act of 1872, to which he had, already referred, there was a clause prohibiting any land taken under the New Zealand Settlements Act from being available for the. objects of the Act of 1872. In a subsequent Act, passed in the session of 1873—the Immigration and Public Works Act —there was also a clause declaring that any land acquired under the provisions of that Act should not be avilablo for the extinguishment of these claims or for the payment of compensation of any kind whatever. If those clauses were deliberately put into those Acts to prevent the claimants obtaining land, then ho could only say they were as nearly of the character of a fraud against those persons as it

was possible to imagine, and came completely within the category of such a case as he had already mentioned, of giving a cheque on a bank where there were no effects. It should be remembered that n® objection was taken to the measure at the time of the passing of it by either of the two Governments holding office during the session of 1872. He might say that there were three Governments in office that session. So far as the House had any knowledge, no objection whatever was raised by those Governments or the Government that succeeded them. There was no minute or Order in Council to showthat any objection was made to giving effect to the awards made, and therefore the Government had given their assent, tacit or implied, if not positive, that the claims were chargeable against the colony, and it was now too late to raise an objection in limine to these claims being equitably settled. He held that it was a question of far more importance than the question of whether the province or the colony should pay a portion of the claim. The character of the colony for good faith .would most certainly suffer, inasmuch as the claimants were persons resident out of the colony, and would have a perfect right to say, “ You have fully provided for tha settlement of the claims of your own colonists . who stood in a similar position to us—you have not dealt in the same manner towards us. In fact, up to this moment you have given us nothing at "all; you have in no way satisfied our claims—claims which date so far back as the year 1834.” There were, three or four claims against the colony that went as far back as that period. No doubt in the earlier portion of that period, it was no fault of the colony that these claims had not been settled, because the critical disturbances in the colony interfered with the settlement of the claims by the Government. But ever since the year 1872 nothing had stood in the way of these claims being settled by the Government. He recognised that the proper position , fer the Government to take up in regard to. these claims was to settle them, because the credit and honor of the colony were at stake. He thought he had very fairly stated the position of this question, and he could only say, with regard to the motion, that he had drawn it so as to give the widest latitude, and without indicating the manner in which the claims should be settled—whether they should be charged mainly or proportionately upon theprovince or the colony. He left it to the Government to come to an equitable, arrangement, and would be quite prepared to support them in doing so. At the same time, the House should insist, as far it could insist by an expression of opinion, that there was an honorable liability on the part of the colony which required that no further delay should be allowed to interfere with the settlement of these claims.