JUSTICE.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume VI, Issue 873, 26 August 1879, Page 2

JUSTICE.

[To the Editor of the Herald.] Sib, — It would be very hard to say what " Observer " has been observing j certainly his attention has not been so strictly rivetted on Mr. Rees' movements as he would have us believe. Has he indeedbeen "taking notes V "Observer" must have allowed his reason to be obscured by his prejudice, or he would never have made such an attack on Mr., Rees as he' has done, more especially if he had taken all the facts of the case into consideration. As to whether Mr. Rees ever told the natives they had a legal right to plough up land :in the occupation of Europeans, "Observer" will find he is mistaken. Mr. Rees merely stated what we all know : "That where a title was m dispute an action for trespass could not be against the parties or party claiming a joint ownership " — a very different thing from what " Observer" would lead us to suppose. Further, he does not know it for a fact ; he says it is "rumoured," and may I enquire whereabouts the " numerous paddocks " are situated % His remarks with regard, to the late Mr. Read's trustees are puerile and absurd — absurd as showing a childlike confidence m one man or men, and equally childish suspicion of another. Anent his remarks carnivorous, he . at least should enjoy complete immunity. The next statement of Mr. Rees having been paid considerable sums of money to complete titles, and his having failed to do so up to the present, must be taken with caution, for "it has been stated" will not be accepted as proof by well " informed" people. With regard to Mr. Rees serving two masters, I have vainly tried to find out what he means, but after a hard struggle had to give it up as being too deep for my understanding. Let me ask '• Observer " if he is aware of the fact that negotiations with natives are of the longest description. -Some of these very owners who have been trying for the last eight years to conclude their titles, and yet, because Mr. Rees has not been able to do so m one year, he is to be treated with obloquy. As to his request to the public to find what Mr. Rees has done

with certain blocks of land, it is very likely the public, having a grain or two of sense, will refuse the office of being "Observer's" detective. As my previous letters will show, I am not an ardent admirer of Mr. Rees ; neither do I worship at the shrine of Sheehan, but. still I think both gentlemen are entitled to fair play, which "Observer" seems unwilling to yield to one of them. rHe blames Mr. Rees for doing his best for his clients, who are the natives m this case. What would he have? Would he confront the natives with the united talent of the Gisborne bar, leaving them, to fight it out as best they may ', or would he have Mr. Rees play them false — if neither, what? One thing is certain, the sooner the mnch vexed, question of title is settled, the better for us all. I will just call " Observer's" attention to the enthusiastic reception Mr. Rees met with on his first visit here, though I suppose one so sharp-sighted as " Observer " observed it. I am, &c, Tai Rawhiti.