NGAITAHU CLAIM. ,

Southland Times, Issue 19505, 20 March 1925, Page 5

NGAITAHU CLAIM. ,

To the Editor. Sir.—ln reply to a letter that appears in your issue of to-day over the signature of Arthur E. Wixon, I beg to state that it is little use carrying on this correspondence with him any further as he persists in making a lot of mis-statements, as I have repeatedly shown by authorities I have quoted. However, Sir before I close I will give him another chance. In his letter (referring to myself) which apeared in the Times of March 13 he says: “Mr Skerrett’s statement that Te Whaikai Pokene and Pokene are father and son might be right in his own mind. I think that he has had that on his mind so long that he believes it to be true and wants others to believe the same. He believes it but there are hundreds who will not.”

Now. Sir, I am prepared to prove to him and the hundreds he mentions that my statement is true and in support of the same I will donate the same amount as in my previous challenge and on the same terms in support of my remarks. Further I desire to state that it is absolutely useless for me to waste my time any longer with a correspondent of this kind. I could carry on for a week pointing out the incorrect statements he has made, supporting my contentions with authorities and facte, as I have already done in some cases. Evidently he is not going to act the true sport and accept my challenge and at least make some attempt to retrieve his honour in support of his remarks or otherwise apologise through the Press. There is no doubt some of his remarks have been made innocently as he has been listening to others who are ignorant of the true state of affairs. Sir, in support of my previous

challenge to Mr Wixon that Te Whaikai Pokene (Mrs Skerrett’s ancestor) signed the famous deed in 1848, I simply refer your many readers to the translation of Kemp’s deed quoted by Mr Wixon ,in his letter that appeared in the i Times on March 13th. It will be seen that the name previously mentioned is one of the signatories of that famous deed, which is clear proof that Mr Wixon’s statements cannot be taken as a correct record of facte. It will also be seen readily that there is no occasion for this matter to go to the Native Land Court for decision, seeing that Mr Wixon has actually decided the matter at issue by the authority he has quoted—the Translation of Kemp’s deed taken from my book (No. 1 Volume South Island Native Affairs). It is simply to save myself that he is evading you, Sir, whom I accepted for a final arbitrator in the matter as recommended by himself. My challenge in both cases is open for all time (for Mr Wixon’s convenience) but any further correspondence with Mr Wixon is now closed so far as I am concerned. Thanking you for the privilege you have extended to me in stating plain facte in connec-

tion with this matter. —I am, etc. GEORGE SKERRET, Awarau Plains.