The Opunake Times. FRIDAY, AUGUST 16, 1895. THE PUBLIC TRUSTEE.

Opunake Times, Volume III, Issue 117, 16 August 1895, Page 2

The Opunake Times. FRIDAY, AUGUST 16, 1895. THE PUBLIC TRUSTEE.

In our last issue we published a very lengthy communication from the Public Trustee to the Chairman of the Town Board. It is the oft told tale, as told by him, of the sacredness of his trust, and the hopelessness of appealing to him for any alteration in the administration of it. He falls back on the statement that his actions are in accord with the provisions of the West Coast. Settlements Act, 1892, which may be true to a certain extent, but that makes it quite clear that that Act wants amending. On the other hand, he has boasted that he personally drafted the Act without any legal aid whatever, and therefore he becomes, to a certain extent, responsible for its unsatisfactory nature. He is horrified at the idea of the Board coinciding with the views enunciated by the recently formed league to convert the lands not required for settlement by the natives themselves into Crown lands, and designates such a course as spoliation and sonfiscation of the natives’ interests. In doing so he deals a very direct slap in the face to the present Government. The area of native lands acquired was a very prominent boast of theirs in the Financial Statement, and in purchasing native lands in other parts, the Government did not designate their action as either spoliation or confiscation, although they do claim they got such lands on very favorable terms, which must logically mean if any advantage was gained by the Government the native owners must have been placed at a disadvantage. Again, they have taken power unto themselves to resume any European’s property which may be required for the purposes of settlement, on payment of fair value, irrespective of whether it is the owner’s wish or not, and yet this is not considered by them to be confiscation, It is only to be considered confiscation when applied to native lands in which the Trustee assumes such a fatherly interest. It is not proposed by any one, as far as we know, to take a single acre from the natives without giving them full value for it, but simply to apply the law of the land, as it at present stands, to them the same as it is applied to European properties at the present time when they are required for settlement purposes. The lessees would prefer being Crown tenants, and to achieve that end without inflicting any injustice whatever on the native owners is the motive and object of the league. In fact it is contended, and we believe with perfect truth, that the natives would be better off with a clear income from debentures than they are at present with a complicated rent revenue, and that they would favor such a course being adopted. He deals in a little “ gush ” about their ancestors having occupied the whole territory as a reason why the best portions should be reserved for the houses and residences of the life tenants. This is very nice talk, but if he knew anything of the history of the district he would know that they have no such thing as ancestral rights at all. The whole of the territory was confiscated, and this portion handed back as a gift from the Europeans to them, of which the unfortunate New Plymouth Harbor ratepayers contributed 25 per cent, or £IOO,OOO. Pretty sort of ancestral rights these are to gush about.