PUBLIC MEETING.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume VI, Issue 940, 3 November 1879, Page 2

PUBLIC MEETING.

NATIVE LAWSUITS BILL. A well attended^eeting was held on Saturday afternoon, at the Roseland Hotel, Makaraka, the object of which was to review what was considered some of the objectionable clauses. Mr. Chambers was moved into the Chair. ' The Chairman explained that while a Native Lawsuits Bill was most urgently needed, that which had been drafted by Mr. Allan McDonald did not fulfil all the requirements of this Coast under exi3bing circumstances. Seation 4 for instance was particularly objectionable, as it was absolutely essential that the Manries land should be held liable so as to pay costs of all lawsuits and judgment debts ; again Native lands should be held liable for payments incurred by the Natives, and again, Native Assessors were particularly objectionable. There were also many other objections to the Bill. Mr. Graham asked if it was likel/ this Act would be brought forward, or superseded by another Act. He considered that if such was the case, the time would be lost in considering this Bill. He objected to the Bill in toto, and that it would be advisable to send a request to our member to withdraw it. The Bill makes no provision for rules of procedure or subdivision. The Bill was not what we wanted. It only provided for parties already in litigation. The Bill was a farce ; only one clause, appointing a judge, being worthy of consideration. He would instance the case of an incomplete lease from Natives to Europeaus. No provision was made in a case for subdivision, which he considered might be made compulsory by the Legislature. Mr. Hardy proposed — That Mr. McDonald should be asked to withdraw the Bill, and that a committee be appointed from the meeting to draw up and prepare one more satisfactory. This was seconded by J. W. Johnson. Mr. Johnson considered the Bill an abomination He considered the Bill was a Maori Bill, and objected to be ruled by Maories and Pakeha-Maories. He considered the Maoris should not have the upper hand in the Legislature. He thought that two judges and one assessor would be ample, if appointed swith equitable and legal jurisdiction. Captain Porter objected to the preamble of the Act as being insufficient, and not sufficiently ample. The Bill was not a satisfactory one. It was altogether in favor of fictitious claims of matters in difference between Europeans and Natives. There was not a sufficient provision as to costs, Maori Lands being exempt from j ust debts. The Bill would never settle sub-divisions, partition, validation of purchases, &c., and more ample provisions were necessary to be made by legislation. The difficulties at, present existing were altogether attributable to actions and laws made by the late Government. The expense of settling all the questions ought to be paid for and settled by the Government out of a vote payable by the Administration of Justice Department. He thought this Bill was not adapted to settle the disputes in this district. He concurred in the motion proposed by Mr. Hardy. Mr. Poynter made some remarks as to clause 3, relating to subdivision, which he thought might meet the objections made by Mr. Graham. Mr. Hardy thought the provision of the Bill was not sufficiently explicit. Mr. Chambers explained that he considered the assessor of the party aggrieved would vote in the interests of whoever appointed him, Mr. Poynter objected to Mr. Johnson's remarks that Maoris were supported by the Bill. Mr. Matthewson objected to the remarks made by Messrs. Graham and others. The Bill he considered did not clash with the Native Lands Act. He thought that there was no necessity for appointing assessors. The Act gives a judge'every power as to costs^aslhe could make an order as to costs, and he could not see how the costs could all fall on the Pakeha. Mr. Hardy was of opinion that it was necessary to have a new Native Lands Act. We have had great trouble in obtaining a sitting of the Native Lands Court. He thought a permanent Court ought to be established, and at least one Native assessor ought to be allowed, but we want ample provision as to the Natives lands being liable for the debt. Th§ European feeling was that we should treat the Native fairly as we had always done. (Mr. Tuckbr : Question 1 Question ?) We have paid the Natives fully for their lands, and they have been treated too well. Mr. Graham urged that the provisions in the Bill was not sufficiently explicit to pnable Europeans to get their subdivisions. Mr. Hardy asked the Chairman to put his motion to the meeting. Mr. Bbassey thought suggestions might be sent to our member as to the Bill. The preamble was all very well, but the rest of the Bill was a sort of double-barrelled Bill, as for instance the provision of section 12. If any question arose under the Native Lands Act, 1873, Native Assessors would have to be brought to adjudicate. He considered that the Governor in Council or his advisers had not sufficient knowledge to frame rules. The framing of rules ought to be left to Judges themselves. He considered lands should be charged with the costs of the lawsuits. Mr. E. ff. Ward, junior, stated that he considered Clause 3, referring to the "Native Grantees Act, 1873," made sufficient provision as to subdivision, but that he thought the Bill in its present form was not satisfactory, and what the district wanted was a fresh Native Land Act. Captain Porter objected to Mr Ward's construction of this section. Captain Tucker, in referring to clause 3, was of opinion that it affected all lands with the exception of native land pure and simple. He thought the clause appointing assessors might be amended if requisite. Mr Brassey stated that he thought any solicitor could demand an assessor if there were twenty parties in dispute. A native might be qualified to be a juror, and be made an assessor. There was a grave ambignity in the Bill which any Government might take advantage of. Witness several cases of gazetting native laws under the Public Works Immigration Act, 1876. Captain Tucker then made a statement justifying the objects of the Bill, and made some useful remarks,

both relative to the Bill and certain amendments which might be made. Mr Hardy interrupted Mr Tucker somewhat unnecessarily* Mr Tuckek stated that he would hot continue to address the meeting if personal feelings were indulged in. The meeting wished to hear both sides in a friendly spirit. Mr Tucker continued, referring to the power of the Governor in Council to frame rules, he considered that it was not probable a Ministers would use undue influence. Mr Chambers : They have often done so ; for instance rehearings made under the Native Lands Act. Mr Tucker thought it was not a similar probability. He suggested that to get over any possibility of the Government influencing rules, it might be advisable to provide that the rules •should be submitted to the Supreme Court sitting in appeal, which would afford ample provisions for amendment of same. He should not care to cast any imputation on the Ministers or Governor. He did not think that it was possible or practicable that the Government should pay costs of suits. He disagreed with Crptain Porter, although former Governments have been to blame for making the natives joint tenants instead of tenants in common. Mr Johnson thought Capt. Tucker should make some amendment. Captain Tucker said he thought the meeting wanted to hear both sides before putting his amendment, and sat down. Mr Hardy was of opinion that the late Native Lands Act had benefitted us. We were no further ahead than we were 14 years ago. Witness the Makauri Block, it was in a worse stage than when the sub-division went before the Court. Cries of " Put the motion." Captain Porter again reiterated and stated a number of other objections to the Bill, and suggested the resolution before the meeting should be amended further. Mr Webb stated he had expressed his opinions in another way, which had been substantiated by what he had heard here. He considered the Bill in its present form objectionable. It appeared that the meeting thought that the Bill clashed with the Native Land Act. It was acknowledged a new Native Land Aotowas wanted, but he considered that was not the question. The Bill was simply a procedure Bill. Mr. McDonald had evidently not given it careful consideration. There was not a line in it to show it eminated from the honorable gentleman. The Act appears to have been introduced for the purpose of simplifying litigation. He thought the motion before the meeting was not a fair one. He was prepared to adopt any amendment to the Bill. He thought the Bill had a good object, but is defeated by the contents, which are paradoxical and unworkable. Mr Brassey moved the following amendment, which was seconded by Captain T. W. Porter .-—"That this meeting considers the Native Lawsuits Bill now brought before the House is totally inadequate and unsuitable to the requirements of the settlement of disputes between Europeans and natives in Poverty Bay with regard to their land, and that a Committee be formed to offer suggestions and report to the House upon the Bill as would meet the requirements of such a measure.'' Proposed by Captain Tucker, secon* ded by Mr H. E. Webb :— " That the meeting generally approves of the principle subjects of the Bill, namely, to provide a tribunal competent to speedily end the disputes in the district as regards the title to lands ; chat the meeting proceed to elect a committee, who shall suggest such amending of the Act as shall conduce to its more effective working $ aud to provide against the contingency of partiality. For the amendment — Capt. Tucker, and Messrs. Webb and Matthewson. Mr Brassey's motion was carried by an overwhelming majority.