[New Zealand Herald, th March, 1893.]

(To the Editor.)

Sir,—Controversy is unprofitable at best. As Burton says, it is like cutting off a hydra's head, one begets another, so many duplications, triplications, and swarms of questions." It is particularly unprofitable and obnoxious when your opponent, with cool assurance, makes you seem to say what you never said; hangs up your effigy, as it were, in the public square labelled in large characters, "This man swears that black is white," then very easily proves you wrong, and thereupon decapitates you." That is Mr Rees' "easy solution of me and my propositions in regard to this question in his letter of 3rd instant, which I have read to-day in your issue of 7th instant. He represents me as proposing that Native land shall be declared Crown land, without qualification. He writes :—"When the great estates held by individuals and by business corporations, and, indeed, all freeholds are declared by statute to be Crown lands, then Mr Siev-Wright's proposals regarding Native lands will be equitable, because all will be treated alike." "They amount, if not to confiscation, at least to something very much resembling that process." Now, my proposed remedy is to declare Native land Crown land, "held in trust for the Natives, and the proceeds derived accounted for and paid to them." There is certainly no such equity in store for the Natives if Mr Rees' proposed Native Committees have any effective power given to them.

But if the great estates referred to were in the same position as to ownership as Native land, the remedy would be the same. The owners being unable to manage for themselves, the proper authority would manage for them, or appoint someone to do so. That is all the Crown would do for the Natives.

I am not, however, going to prolong me discussion of this question, as the issues are now pretty clearly before the public. The only pity is that so many of the public regard this question as the one they ought not meddle with, as one which only experts understand or can deal with. The sooner think otherwise the better.

In conclusion, I, too, like Mr Ress, "venture to warn the people of Auckland and New Zealand against being dazzled or away by any apparently simple," if not heroic, method of settling the Native land question which stops short of giving to the Crown the absolute and exclusive control of all "dealings" with Native land as if it were Crown land. If the Native Land Laws Reform League will work for that end, and to page 5 close every door against opportunity for speculation in Native laud, it will deserve well of the country.—I am, &c.,