THE NGAITAHU CLAIM.

Southland Times, Issue 19497, 11 March 1925, Page 7

THE NGAITAHU CLAIM.

To the Editor. Sir.—Referring to my previous letter on the above matter which appeared in the Times of Thursday morning last, in reply to a letter that, appeared in to-day’s issue of the Times above the signature of Arthur E. Wixon, let me say that I still maintain the statements made by me and given to your reporter which appeared in your issue of February 26, are absolutely correct in substance and in fact, and that it is simply ignorance of facts that tempts Mr Wixon to construe my remarks to suit his own interests. This he is unable to do for the simple reason that not one of his ancestors signed the famous deed of 1848. I maintain, Sir. that the whole of my remarks as published in your daily issues are absolutely a true record of facts and until Mr A. Wixon can furnish proof through the medium of the Press to the contrary, it must be assumed they are a true record of facts. lam prepared to substantiate my remarks in a practical way if Mr Wixon so desires. Instead of Mr Wixon adhering to the points at issue, he prefers to make a lot of rambling statements that are beside the question. With your permission I will endeavour to show that such is the case. First he gives Mrs Skerrett the credit of being a direct descendant of “Pokene” who signed the Otago purchase, which is quite correct and confirms my previous statements, but he doubts the accuracy of Te-Whaikai Pokene having signed the deed of 1848 (see Volume I, Folio South Island Native Affairs for confirmation). I may state for Mr Wixon’s information that the two persons first referred to were father and son. This is where Mrs Skerrett and her sister and brothers obtained their rights through the Court without question, not as stated by Mr Wixon through their ancestors connection with the “Tautuku” Block. They made no application to the Court through this connection. Mr Wixon states that the more ancestors you could submit to the Court the larger the share, that is quite true, so it will readily be seen that if Mrs Skerrett had made a further application on that score they would be entitled to another share in this historic claim, consequently those who were fortunate enough to get into the claim through these channels are very fortunate indeed as this share will be divided amongst the favoured applicants. I may state that the connecting link in the “Tautuku” Block was obtained through my generosity in placing my records (Volume 1 and 2 South Island Native Affairs) at the disposal of the Appointed Committee for the purpose of assisting applicants to establish the claims put forward by them where there was a shadow of a doubt as to their being able to do so. This fact is no doubt appreciated by quite a large number of the applicants who were successful in being admitted into the claim.

Further, Sir, he states that I never attempted to succeed to the “Pokene” name. That is quite true. I contend it would be a piece of imposition on my part to claim succession to a person who was no connection of mine. Surely he will give me credit for knowing better than that. Then he goes on to say that “Pokene” was not my ancestor! Next, Sir, he (to suit his own purpose) conveniently evades the question of Volume 2 South Island Native Affairs (Folio 126) which is the authority I quoted for confirmation of my remarks. Next he has the audacity to state that he is going to make me produce proof of my ancestral right to “Pokene.” This is simply ridiculous as I have never attempted to claim this person as an ancestor of mine. He gives me credit for establishing my right to participate in this historical claim. I regret to state that I am unable to pay him the same compliment seeing he is minus any interest whatever in this claim. He goes on to state that several names were deleted in this claim, and mentions severals names: Karetai, Topi, “Rangiwhakana.” Now,. Sir, these statements are contrary to fact as the three persons named were original owners who signed the famous deed in 1848, and were admitted without question into this great claim. The remaining portion of his letter is not worth referring to. I will conclude with reference to the title be is eager to claim—that of secretary of the Ngaitahu Claims Committee. It will be seen by the signatures attached to the letter of thanks for services rendered. The signatures are those of TeHau Kelly, Vice Chairman Ngaitahu claim and Hui, R “Taiaroa,” Chairman of Appointed Committee, and J. T. Paiki, Chairman of Hui. These are the gentlemen he claims who made the presentation. Now Sir not one of these gentlemen mentioned, I am informed, are members of the Ngaitahu Claims Committee. Finally one thing I will give Mr Wixon credit for is that he was attached to the food supply department and a very energetic man he was, and his services were much appreciated in that line. He had the honour of issuing tickets for meals, etc., and collecting cash for same. It is pleasing to know that the gentlemen who made the presentation recognised this fact as he thoroughly deserved the recognition paid to him; but he can-

not lay claim to the title he is desirous of claiming for the simple reason that Mr W. “Mihaka” of Temiika has occupied this position for a very long time and is worthy of all the credit we can bestow on him for the able way in which he has carried out the duties entrusted to him for the benefit of all concerned. Referring to Mr Wixon’s challenge to debate the subject with him. I simply decline for reasons I am not at liberty to state. However, if be is willing to adhere to the points at issue I am prepared to carry on through the medium of the Press, otherwise the correspondence is now closed so far as I am concerned.—l am, etc, GEORCE SKERRETT. Awarua Plains.