The Temuka Leader THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 1833.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1150, 20 September 1883, Page 2

The Temuka Leader THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 1833.

THE RUSSELL EXCHANGE BILL. One of the measures which was slaughtered amongst the innocents last session was the Russell Exchange of Land Bill. The subject matter of this Bill has been under discussion for the last nine or ten years. The question was fully discussed in the debate on the second reading, and there has beon a great deal more information supplied in the shape of correspondence written in connection with the mutter. From this it appears that Mr Thomas Mussel!—the gro.it Jay Gould of tho North Island and partner of the Premier—in or nhout the year 1874 was in treaty for the purchase of a block of land called Te Aroha from the natives. At this ti"ae it was illegal for any private individual to purchase land from the natives. Tho hind had fir,«t to pass through tho Native Linds Court, and other technicalities had to bo complied with before the purchase could be legally completed. Ye', notwithstanding this, considerable traffic in land was going, on and the Government, appears to have winked at it. The law to prevent private individuals from purchasing Native lands was passed in order to put a stop to the npacity of the land sharks who up to that time h id bueu acquiring Native l.mds for a mere son<r —sometimes for gif ; s of tobacco or whiskey but it. does not appear to havt: ber'n very strict'y enforced, for we liud that Mr Muckay admits ' that

the majority of the leases and agreements which he inquired into were neither legal nor valid, although they had been made with the assistance of Government officers of the Native Department.' It will be seen from this that not alone did the Government wink at the law but really allowed its officers to break it. It was when things were going on in this way that Mr Thomas Russell entered into negotiations for the purchase of the block of land in question. At that time Mr Mackay appears to have been serving two masters. He was in the employment of the Government and also in the service of Mr Russell, and somehow he agreed with Mr Russell that if he would forego his ciaim to the land and not oppose the Government in the purchase of it, he would get another block of land instead of it as soon as the Government could purchase it. The Te Aroha block it appears was suited for special settlement, for it was for that Mr Brootnehall, and subsequently Messrs Grant and Foster, Lin colnshire f > 'mers' Delegates, entered into negotiations» and it was probably for this reason that the Government of the day interfered with Mr Russell in the purchase of it. Ever since Mr Russell has been urging his claim upon the Government, and an extraordinary amount of correspondence has been written on the subject. In the last batch of correspondence to hand there is only one letter bearing the signature of 'the jovial Native Minister,' Johny Sheehan, and all it contains is an excuse for not having replied to several letters addressed to him on the subject during the previous three months. Then come several letters and memos, written by Mr Rolleston, and from these it would appear that that gentleman resisted with characteristic courage the influences which were brought to bear upon him, and at last capped the whole affair by stating that he would not do anything in the matter until he had obtained Hie sanction of Parliament. We have frequently expressed our admiration of Mr Rolleston, but we think he has seldom appeared to better advantage than he does in this transaction. When we consider the power and influence of Mr Russell, and the fact that he is the partner of the Premier, we can easily realise what Mr Rolleston resisted in order to give Parliament an opportunity of discussing this matter. It would appear that he does not believe in the transaction himself, for in introducing the Bill he said very little in favor of it, only that the Government were in honor bound to recognise Mr Russell's claim, and the first opportunity that offered he moved that it be referred to the Waste Lands Committee, where the poor thing perished. Now the thing is this, Mr Russell entered into negotiations for the purchase of this land in contravention of an Act of Parliament, and an employee of the Government, with the sanction of a Cabinet Minister, undertook to compensate him for relinquishing his right to a block of land to which the law could not give him a right. In other words, a Minister of the Crown undertook to compensate him for desisting frGin breaking the law, and the question is now whether the Crown is in honor bound to ratify this undertaking. Some stress was I laid on the fact that the officer in question was employed both by Mr Russell and the Government, but we do not think that there is anything in that. The point is, the Minister of the Crown acquiesce in the affair, and it does not matter if it had been his stable boy who had acted on his behalf. We have always heard that 'two wrongs won't make a right,' and we think think this trite old saw will apply in this case. The Minister that gave the undertaking to Mr Russell had no right to do so. He ought to have said ' The law does not allow you to acquire this land, therefore cease your negotia-, 'tioos for it.' The question is now, is the present Government bound in honor to ratify the wrong which a previous Minister did ? If it is, we must say that political morality is a thing we do not admire. Wa understand that there are hundreds of people in the same position as Mr Russell. The law prevented them from completing their Native land purchases, and if Mr Russell has a right to compensation they ought to have the same privileges extended to them. Mr Russell sustained a loss of £l3O. We should recommend the Government to refund him that sum, though we do not think he is entitled to it, and to inform him that he may as well give up all hopes of his claim being ever recognised.