MAORI LANDLORDISM.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XXXII, Issue 10526, 29 November 1905, Page 2

MAORI LANDLORDISM.

(To the Editor of the Herald.) .Sir,— As the cry against. Maori landlordism, which conuii mainly from the Opposition, haw been usetl repeatedly by one (if tho candidates for the Waiapu Beat, allow me, on behalf of the Maoris and, in fairness to them, to endeavor in tsoine nicaMin- and as plainly as my. knowledge of English would permit to give their eidc of the question. When I sent in a question to Mr Clayton at the conclusion of hi** meeting la.st Thursday night, asking him to point out what evils had resulted from the system of Maori landlordism in this district, he did not answer the main question, but simply said that though the pakelia might be making money now out of Maori land there would come a time when the Maori would have Ms turn of making money out of his own land after it had been* improved by the pakeha. This reply, though, I consider, purely sentimental, wae applauded by the large audience that listened to him. For a Maori to becenie wealthy, Mr Clayton would regard as an evil to be abhorred. Mr Clayton, I understand is an "Englishman," and, 1 Kuppose, has imported with himself English notiops of landlordism. Thfe English landlord is usually a titled per.Hin, who lives in a mansion ; under the shadow of his castle lives the poor peasant in his cottage, who ie his tenant. Now the Maori landlord often lives in a hovol, works for his tenant who lives in a, mausion, receives .some rent hardly sufficient even for hie few Avants so that ho is compelled to do any kind of work for hi» tenant, even to beeuming his domestic servant. There is no resemblance between the system of landlordism as perpetuated in the British Isles and that we see in this colony, except in mere phrases. A pakeha would hardly leuse a, block of land from a. Maori unless he was sure he would make a good thing out of it, and as a rule he alwaj's gets tho belter of the bargain. Why should it be counted wrong when a contract was honestly and fairly entered into between a pakeha and a Maori? If there was anytiling that needed -safeguarding against it was that lest tho educated pakeha should take advantage of the ignorance of the Maori his landlord. A pakelia, leasing land from a. Maori is not prompted by patriotic motives that the State should legislate <»ulv for his benefit, without any regard for the claims of the Maori. MiEditor, would you not admit that. a. system that enriches both the landlord and his tenant in most commendable, and beneficial to the State? The Maori that leases his land and the pakeha that improves it for his own gaiu both materially assist the State. But Mr Clayton dreads the possibility of a wealthy Maori aristocracy. I ask, from a. national point of view; which is preferable, a Maori aristocracv or a, race of vaup erfi7 And why should it. be counted a crime because a. Maori should happen to be a landlord or to bcCoinc wealthy? Mr Claytons biggest argument is that tho Maori will become wealthy at the expense of the pakelia. I ask does a tenant improve a piece of land in the interest of his landlord or of himad'f ? We all know, m lus own interest: that of lus landlord is only secondary and consequential. Besides, in the question of the increased value of laud Is the money of the tenant the only factor that should bo considered of value and not the labor of tho Maori and of. the poor pakeha? Moreover, the numey'wliH-'h. the tenant ustfi may not be really his, but borrowed from somebody else. To whom the increased value of laud belongs is a question not yet definitely settled, but I concur with a large number of people who hold that the increased value of- land belongs to the owner, and not to the tenant. Mr Clayton is fond of proudly displaying to his audiences the scars left on has heart by pity for the poor, ond I wonder if hw philanthropic and sensitive heart does not instinctively apprehend the possibility of a system of Maori pauperism. lam afraid Mr Clayton's views on this question are very much influenced by color, for he lws publicly declared that he could not bjast of a love for the Maori nor a liking for the Chinese, and therefore I conclude his views on 'this question are prejudiced, and therefore utterly worthless. 1 am ;«.s anxious as anyone* that Maori lands should be settled as quickly as is consistent with justice to the Maori, but 1 will resist— I* will eveiy Maori— any measure that is one-sided; tyrannical, V.lM U vm Jezebelian.— l am, etc., RANG!.