The Southland Times PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. Luceo Non Uro. THURSDAY, JULY 13, 1911. A CRUSHING ANSWER.

Southland Times, Issue 16785, 13 July 1911, Page 4

The Southland Times PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. Luceo Non Uro. THURSDAY, JULY 13, 1911. A CRUSHING ANSWER.

When Sir James Carroll spoke in Invercargill he dealt at length with his native land administration, and claimed much credit for the passing of the Native Land Act. Sir James 'gave figures with the object of showing W-t Mr Massey’s estimate of the quan it/ of native land available for settlement, but locked up on account of the inertia of the Native Minister, was far astray. He also alleged that the Native Land Act was passed in spite of persistent opposition from Mr Massey and Mr James Allen, and pointed out that Mr W. H. Herries, whom he described as the only member of the Opposition who has any grasp of native laud affairs, did not support the criticism of Mr Massey and Mr Allen. He implied that Mr Herries, with his wide personal knowledge of the native land question, approved of the Government’s administration and was satisfied with the existing position. When Mr Ngata came to his series of short character sketches of the leading members of the Opposition he had nothing but praise for Mr Herries. . Indeed, he represented Mr Herries as possessing so much ability and so wide a liberalism in politics- that he was compelled to claim him as a supporter of the Government. It would never have done to allow so much merit to a member of the Opposition, and consequently Mr Ngata was forced to say. “Mr Herries should be on our side.” The speeches delivered by Sir James Carroll and Mr Ngata at Invercargill have been brought under the notice of Mr Herries, and what that gentleman has to say in reply makes very unpleasant reading for the Acting-Prime Minister and his colleague. On their own admission Mr Herries is an authority on the subject, and his rejoinder, as that of an authority, destroys their claim to a public award of success as native land administrators. Mr Herries says, first of all, that Sir James Carroll’s calculation of the amount of native land still available for settlement must be disallowed because, quite improperly, he deducts under various headings 1,346,022 acres. “I cannot see any reason,” says Mr Herries, “why these areas should be deducted from the total area of native

land. They certainly come under that denomination. The Urawera country, and until lately the Thermal Springs districts, were under separate Acts, but for the purpose of land held nnprofitably by natives they have a right to be included.” As to Mr Massey's estimate of the area of unproductive native land at 4,000,000 acres, Mr Merries points out that if allowance is made for the 1,346,022 acres wrongfully deducted by Sir James Carroll, the total area is nearly 5,350,000 acres, so that Mr Massey’s estimate was rather on the conservative side. Then as to Sir James Carroll’s statement in respect to the area of native lands in profitable occupation, Mr Merries affirms bluntly that it has to be taken with “a considerable grain of salt.” Lands given as ‘‘profitably occupied” are not really ‘‘profitably occupied” in the accepted meaning of the term. A great part of the so-called settlement consists of leases of timber cutting and flax cutting rights; 49,134 acres are leased to one company, 18,065 acres are leased to one man, and only about 106,321 acres of rural land have apparently been genuinely settled by 147 settlers. “The truth is,” Mr Merries states, “that land vested in the Boards under various Acts is just as much locked up as if it was still native land, or rather more so, as even the natives cannot use it.’* Curiously .enough a clause of the Native Land Act of 1905, which has proved effective in enabling Europeans to obtain native lands on lease “was bitterly opposed by Sir James Carroll on the Native Affairs Committee when proposed by Mr A. L. D. Fraser, and yet it is the only clause that did anything in favour of settlement during the long, dreary years between 1894 and 1909.” In reference to the Act of 1909, which Sir James Carroll said he passed in the teeth of opposition from Mr Massey and Mr Allen, Mr Merries says that Sir James must know his statement to be most unjust, for “he knows as well as 1 do that the Bill would never have passed except for the forbearance and assistance of the Opposition.” Furthermore, while the Acting-Prime. Minister took all* the credit for the Bill, Mr Merries remarks that “it was noticeable that though Sir James Carroll was in charge of the Bill Mr Ngata generally gave the explanation. In fact the credit of the Bill is due to Professor Salmond and Mr Ngata.’ Mr Merries does not deny that the 1909 Act is a great improvement on previous legislation, but he points out that the more Sir James Carroll praises the 1909 Act “the more he condemns the previous native land legislation of the Government, as the 1909 Act reverses a good deal and alters more of all the legislation since 1894.” Then, although, the Act is a marked improvement, its administration leaves a deal to be desired. The Maori Land Board has no staff and no money to use in cutting up land, consequently neither native nor European has a chance to obtain sections on land vested in the Board. The whole department is starved, and the administration of the Board “lies, like a blight on the land, not through the fault of the Board but through insufficient equipment.” Mr Ngata’s figures are described by Mr Merries as meaning “absolutely nothing as far as settlement is concerned.” He declares that while such figures may have had an effect on an Invercargill audience, they have no effect in the North where the settlers themselves see thousands of acres lyings idle, affording “occular demonstration of the fallacy of the avalanches of figures put .forward by the Minister.” Summing up Mr Merries says;— “Sir James Carroll missed a great chance; he was the one man who could have done more to unite the two races than any otiier man in the Dominion. Instead of that the whole aim of the Government policy has been to separate the races. It is onlyin 1909 after seventeen years have been wasted in futile and indefensible legislation that the germ of a saner policy "becomes visible, and if a wiser Government comes into power the Act of 1909 may be used as a foundation stone by which the unification of the two races, which is the one desire of all who wish well to the native race, may at last he attained. Sir James Carroll accuses the Opposition of wanting to spoil the natives, but I think most people will agree that the spoilers are those who by their legislation have absolutelytaken away the freehold of 1,029,362 acres from the natives, and handed it over to boards and are responsible for clauses 84, &5, S6, and 87 of the Native Land Act,1909.” The criticism has the ring of truth, and conviction, and it comes from a man to whom .he Acting-Prime Minister and Mr Ngata have of their own accord given a certificate of high competency. How Sir James Carroll and his lieutenant will reply to Mr Merries we do not know. They cannot impugn his ability as a critic, and the probability is that they are quite unable to expose inaccuracies in his statement and figures. We have seen some crushing criticism at one time and another, but it is difficult to recall an overthrow so complete as that to which Mr Merries has treated Sir James Carroll and Mr Ngata—practically at their own invitation.