Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

The Pamphlet Collection of Sir Robert Stout: Volume 86

[New Zealand Herald, nth February, 1893.]

[New Zealand Herald, nth February, 1893.]

The above subject I notice is being discussed in your columns, and perhaps you will permit me, as one who knows, to make a few observations. I have lived in this Native district for ten years, and have had during that time, as well as previously, extended professional experience as a solicitor in Native land business; and as the subject is admittedly one of paramount importance to the advancement and prosperity of the North Island—indeed of the colony—it is well to have it looked at from every point of view.

The universal demand is that some just but simple and easy mode of acquiring Native land shall be devised, by which the risks, delay, and expense hitherto incurred shall be avoided, with a view to the speedy settlement and occupation of the land. The diagnosis is certain, but the doctors prescribe various remedies. The two principal remedies may be shortly described as (1) individualisation of titles, and (2) ascertainment of title, and dealings, by Maori Committees.

1. There is something to be said for the first proposed remedy, because during the last 25 or 30 years we have been steadily instructing the Native mind to take in the idea of individual title to land, of which it had no notion previously; and, like 'cute members of the human family as they are, the Natives have now thoroughly learned their lesson. This process of education has at length created an insuperable obstacle to changing back to the old tribal methods; and it may therefore be fairly argued that if there is to be simplication it must be on the lines of such teaching. Unfortunately, however, there are two formidable practical difficulties. The first is the great delay which the process of ascertaining title and subdividing the land in the Native Court entails, before each Native owner can have his share out out. This takes years generally to accomplish, in the few cases where it is attempted. The second is, that the expense in every case—excepting perhaps that of a valuable block near a town—is greater than the value of the land. Ordinary country land cannot stand the cost of survey and completion of individual title, and the Native owners therefore, in practice, do not individualize titles. Unless a block is of very exceptional value, and is so situated that very small parcels of land are sought after, land is invariably owned in common. So that though the phrase "individualization of title" is attractive and sounds well, the thing itself is impracticable. Often it is no more than a convenient phrase to play with before people who do not know.

2. The other proposed remedy is attractive too, and sounds well. It would be useless to propose it if not attractive. Corporations, all the world over, are reputed to be without conscience, even among the highly civilized and refined peoples; and it needs little knowledge of Maori character to predict confidently that the conscience of a Maori corporation would be very elastic in dealing with Maori lands not their own. There is I believe sometimes a little doubt about the Land Boards of the colony running straight — absolutely straight — notwithstanding stringent legislation, elaborate rules and regulations, and heavy penalties, and even although the press of the colony, as well as members of the Legislature, watch them with lynx eyes. But the difficulties of keeping them running straight would not be a patch upon what would be necessary in the case of Maori Committees, whose dealings would necessarily be in secret—anyway much out of view, or in the shade. How simple it would be to obtain an indefeasible title to land from a Maori Corporation ! Hitherto, with individual dealing, the power of Backsheesh has been very effective; but it has been pretty nearly always Backsiieesh—more Backsheesh—and still more Backsheesh. With the corporation the thing would probably be more easily, certainly more quickly, done. Quite likely it would still be Backsheesh, more Backsheesh, and still more Backsheesh; but the goal would be reached without unnecessary delay and intense anxiety. The needful cash could be made as handy as the corporation seal. The latter does not take long to affix, ami it has statutory virtue. And then it is a Board that does it all ! There would be no risk. It would simply be a case of voting this way or that way, and the transaction is complete. Mr Cadman undoubtedly states the fact when he says Native Committees are not to be trusted. It would be entirely unreasonable to expect of them any high standard of virtue or honesty.

Apart, however, from all this, there is the fatal difficulty I have already indicated. The individual Native owners have now been taught to understand what property in land means and can give them. And every-day page 2 transactions proves that they decline to allow their chiefs or Committees to dispose of their land. It would be grossly wrong, as well as futile, to attempt to coerce them into placing their interests in the hands of Committees of their own number.

The truth is neither of the proposed remedies is "worth a cent!" 'They are not remedies at all. Then what is a remedy? There is only one remedy, and that is to declare all land belonging to Natives, which has not been Crown Granted or brought under The Land Transfer Act, to be Crown land, exactly unalienated land, the property of the nation, is Crown land, and to to dealt with as such; with this one difference, that it is to be held in trust for the Natives, and the proceeds derived accounted for and paid to them. As a recompense for such a valuable service rendered to them by the State a proper charge would have to be made; and an equivalent would also have to be given by them to the State, in land or otherwise, for expenditure on roads, bridges and railways made for opening up territory. Elected Maori representatives ought to sit as members of the various Land Boards in Native districts or where there is Native Land. If our land system be good for administration of Crown land for the nation, it cannot be bad for the administration of the land of the Natives, who are a part of the nation. But Humbug wont admit that; Speculation rouses up at the mention of it; and Law—will Lawyers always do the right thing. Simplification is quite in our line.

What good would result from the adoption of such a system of dealing with Native land? To mention some benefits:
1.It would be an immense boon to the Natives; they would quickly appreciate its great advantages, and would readily assent to it. "The West Coast Settlement Reserves Act, 1802," is a remarkable object lesson to the Maoris, and soon they will cry out for Crown administration of their land all round.
2.It has the recommendation of being an honest way of treating the Natives.
3.Investigation of Native title, so called, in so far as there are now any titles to investigate, would be very quickly completed, because the question being only a question of division of money, not land, the usual wrangling before the Native Land Court would be dropped. The Native Land Court would be very little wanted. Some old business might have to be worked off'; successors to dead people would have to be appointed. But most of it might be done by the local Resident Magistrate.
5.Settlement of Native lands would then go on apace; every man requiring and would have an opportunity of getting it; and the Maoris dying off would absorbed into the European population.

It is true that Native land dealings are practically stopped by recent legislation restricting alienation, and operating as a mild kind of resumption of the pre-emptive right by the Crown; but at best this is unsafe, slow, and unsatisfactory a remedy, while it is unjust to the Native owners. And there can be no permanency in any method excepting that of declaring the whole to be Crown land.

Of course there is one alternative to the Crown alone dealing, which would pretty quickly bring about the disposal of Native land—free trade in Native land, absolute free trade: that is to say, every man for himself and Devil take the hindmost, particularly the Maori. It is, however, shocking to contemplate what would happen; and it is a satisfaction to know, or believe, that the New Zealand Legislature will not permit free trade in Native land.—I am, &c.,

W. Sievwright.

Gisborne,