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, 14th February, 1893.]

[New Zealand Herald, 14th February, 1893.]

Sir,—While fully alive to the importance and simplicity of the method of acquiring Native land suggested by Mr Napier, viz., taking it compulsorily as required, paying value, let us frankly face the difficulties attending it. I propose to notice one or two :—
1.To carry out the suggestion thoroughly, and avoid a double system of land dealing—one by the Crown, and one by the Native owners (a most undesirable state of things)—either all the land would need to be taken at and paid for at a fair value, or else it would be necessary, while taking some for immediate requirements, simultaneously to prohibit Natives from dealing with the" remainder—in short to, practically, resume the pre-emptive right in a very arbitrary form. We dare not attempt to do such a thing with Europeans and their land; we dare not prohibit it Europeans from selling their land when and to whom they please. Why should Native landowners be treated otherwise?
2.Then, will Parliament be prepared to provide money or debentures sufficient to buy up all the land of the Natives at once? Say, roughly, 8,000,000 acres, at 5s per acre, or $2,000,000. Nothing is to be gained by buying. Settlement of the land is really all the country wants or cares for, and that alone is the great object to be attained under any method.
3.We cannot stop short at taking the land of the Natives for settlement purpose. The same principle must be applied to the land of Europeans when such land is required for settlement; and, moreover, the price to be paid to Europeans must not be more than relatively equal. Injustice ought not to be done to either class of landowners as to price.

These are real and practical objections. Is the game worth the candle? The objections are avoided by the proposed method of vesting the land in the Crown in trust. The land would then be disposed of as required; there would be no need for the Crown to find purchase money; the question of interfering with the land of Europeans is left undisturbed in the meantime at least, though it may not be for long; and, further, the question of rating Native land is not raised, as the land will be rated as it gets into European occupation, or actual occupation, like Crown land.—I am, &c.,

W. Sievwright.

Gisborne,