CORRESPONDENCE. We do not necessarily endorse the opinions expressed by our correspondents.]

Waikato Times, Volume IV, Issue 200, 21 August 1873, Page 2

CORRESPONDENCE. We do not necessarily endorse the opinions expressed by our correspondents.]

R io ; lie Editor of the Waikato Times. Sin, — Yju iiHvoaltogetlier mistaken the purport of the paragraph in im report which you quote in your leader of to-day I should point out that I use the words " as the law at present stand*," which might Lave caused you to pause before you committed yourself to the statement:— "This course would be tho politic course if the intention were to admit byword and practice that we have made laws that we are unable or unwilling to enforce." I will refer you to a portion of the Native Lands Act headed " subdivision of hereditaments ;" you will there find that it is provided by law that in any ease where a Crown Grant lias been issued to more than one person of the native race, that the grantees can apply for a subdivision of tho hereditaments for which such grant has been issued ; the original Crown Grant is then surrendered and cancelled, and new grants are issued by the Crown for the lands bo divided. I did not suggest recourse to this provision for the benefit of PuruLutu or any of his associates, but to enable justice to be done to other innocent persons who had been excluded I would ask you to remember that the fir»t certificate for the Maunn;atautari block was m favor of fifteen natives, which gave dissatisfaction, and afterwards the Court issued two certificates with ten names in each. In the Pukekura case the first certificate issued was in favor of 26 claimants, and for the Puahue block, the first certificate issued contained 25 names ; subsequently those two blocks have been grunted to 10 men in each. 1 now ask what bocomes of the infeic-.ts or nights of the 1(5 men excluded from the one block, and of the 15 from tho other P I say, without any hesitation, that unless advantage is taken of the provisions of the Native Lands Act to make such subdivision of the Pukekura and Punhue blocks, that the lessee cannot get nn indefeasible title from even the loyal natives, of whom several sire debarred from participating in the rents or profits of the land, by 10 only being in tho certificate or grant for each block. Setting aside the decision of the Court or getting a re-hearing of tlio case never entered into my mind, as both course* are impracticable. It ma\ be possible by a very expensive process to set aside a decision of the Native Lands Court through tho .Supremo Court. As to a re-henring in the Native Lands Court, that can only take place if application is made within six months from the date of decision. The remedy suggested was one strictly on this account m accordance with the law of the country, and you will find on reference to tho Act tliufc I have neither misquoted nor misunderstood its provisions Inm not an advocate or admirer of the Native Lands Act as a stands, and i-ould probably suggest some amendments in it ; but m ire complications are caiiood by the extreino hasto oi native claimants and Europeans to procure titles than by any defects in the Act. There are provisions in the Act to meet a variety of case?, but neither tho native claimants or tho European lessees care about following what they term tho slow and tardy process of the law, and they cmleivour to get the easiest negotiable title a< speedily &* possible 1 will give a notable instance. The Gralmmstown lands ut the Thames were passed through tho Court and leased in a hurry, and there have been disputes about them e\er since; the Shortland Town lands, on the contrary, were a long time in being brought before the Court, and people complained at not getting their leases, &.c.', sooner, but no difficulty bus ever arisen about tho title to them, because I took every step carefully and in accordance with the Native Lands Act. Ido not blame tke Judges of the Native Land Court for any action taken by them in the MautigHtiiiiUri, Piikekura, and l'uahue ca«ea. The Native Land Court is guided b\ vevy much the same law as other courts ol law, and it hears and determines according to the application or claim made to it after duly hearing the evidence in support of such claim or application. If the deoision, as given, n not inlislurton, the parties apprised by it can apply for a re-linnnna:, and if the persons m favor of whom u decision i* gnen di'-nc .1113 alteralion m their title, or ore not, satire I mth if, they or their | agents :>houM bike advantage ot other proceedings \ of rhe Court, which refuse nnv application whatsoever wherever it bus jurisdiction, 'lhe Court cannot act however ; without application is niddo to it. 1 ha.vo merely written i

this to remove any wrong impression which may be conveyed to the ntitivo mind by reading the construction you have put on the Mmgestions mmy report. I maintain that the decisions of Courts should be upheld and respected ; at the saino tune, while showing all respect, advantage may bo taken of other provisions «f the law to remedy defects and errors, winch the most enlightened Judges and highest Courts are at all times liable to make. Jamks Mack at, Jim. Cambridge, August 10.