[New Zealand Herald, nth February, 1893.]

(The Editor New Zealand Herald.)

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.

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.,

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

(The Editor New Zealand Herald.)

Sir,—I am tempted, although at a distance, to amplify on one or two points what I said in my letter which appeared in the Herald of the 6th instant, because of your; query in a leader on the 7th—"Can it be done now?" It requires legislation, and no doubt there's the rub; but Parliament has only to say the word. To my mind all the good, and none of the ill, which another method will give rise to, would he attained by Crown administration. Further, that would be essentially in accordance with the Treaty of Waitangi, conserving the interests of the Natives while opening up the whole Native territory to European occupation speedily. The last is the important consideration.

Suppose Parliament, with wisdom and foresight as I think, were next session to declare Native land to be Crown land in trust for the Natives, what would happen? Assume the Natives to he against such a policy—which is a huge ranted assumption—would they rise up rebellion? Of course not. They would page 3 simply give in and accommodate themselves to the change. This, however, would also happen : speculation in Native land would be stopped, and thus the only real obstacle to the adoption of a high-minded and wise policy be removed.

You suggest a difficulty as to apportioning proceeds among the Natives. It is not to be supposed that even under Crown administration everything will go on like clockwork, but there will be the minimum of friction and difficulty. But on this subject it must not be forgotten that now the ownership of nearly all the Native land has been ascertained, and the remainder is being very rapidly put through. And wherever the owners have been ascertained apportionment is simple enough, because it is known who is entitled; and as I have said the local Resident Magistrate could settle any dispute that might arise.

As to reserves, the Natives have now vastly more reserves than they make use of; but give them more if found desirable, or if they wish more.—I am, etc.,

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

(The Editor New Zealand Herald.)

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.,

[New Zealand Herald, 4th March, 1893.]

(To Editor.)

Sir,—"Two matters require some reply—(1) the effect of the Treaty of Waitangi, referred to by yourself, and (2) alleged Native opposition—by bullets, etc. The Treaty of Waitangi—which certainly ought not to be broken down by legislation—did this: On the one hand, the Maoris ceded to the Queen the full sovereignty of New Zealand with all that that implies, and also a right of preemption of such land as the Natives themselves wished to sell. On the other hand, the Maoris, in consideration thereof, were declared British subjects, with all the rights, duties, and privileges of such, and were guaranteed protection and the peaceable possession of their land, etc. Literally, of course, the Maoris have never had. and do not now have possession in any proper sense of more than a fraction of the Native territory; they do not use it in any way; it is a waste howling wilderness, on which scarcely any of them ever set foot. Will any reasonable man contend that what the Crown became bound to do was to exercise its Sovereign power to retard or prevent this waste howling wilderness from being used? Or that the Maoris themselves intended anything else than that they were to be helped to turn it to account? The pre-emption given to the Queen, and the sales of vast tracts thereafter, proves the intention and object of the Natives. The very founding page 4 of the colony implied it. The scheme of vesting the land in the Crown in trust is not intended to deprive them of this waste howling wilderness, but to give them that which as British subjects they are entitled to, viz., a suitable method of dealing with their land and turning it to account. If their land belonged to English people how would the law deal with it on the application of anyone interested? It is admitted on all hands that it is impracticable to subdivide and cut out each man's share; and in that case the English law of partition provides that such land shall either continue to be held and dealt with in common, or if that be inexpedient that it shall be disposed of and the proceeds divided. Unquestionably the Native owners, as a rule, are as anxious as Europeans to have the land dealt with it they only were shown how to do so in some useful and efficient way. The scheme proposed is that efficient" way : and under it their real interests will be far more effectively conserved than ever they have been or than they ever can be under any other method. And this would not create Maori landlordism, for the State would be the landlord, if anyone, just as in the case of Crown land.

Will the Maori oppose this reasonable plan? The bullet bogey has been heard of before, but the type of Maori who at one time might have used the bullet is not now existent. The modern Maori knows better, and will take care of his own skin. Even if opposed, which I emphatically maintain he is not, the modern Maori is little influenced by sentiment. He, like the European, prefers money; only show him how, for his and, he can get a money return, and he will fall in with the plan at once. It is an unjustifiable assumption that the Natives will not fall in with the plan proposed. The times are ripe for it. They know their land must now be used; they are fully alive to the imminence of taxation of their land [see evidence given before Native Land Commission in 1891]; and they only want to have the proposed plan put before them to jump at it. On the West Coast the Natives urged that all their extensive reserves there should be taken out of their names and vested in the Public Trustee, to be dealt with for them. It gave the utmost satisfaction. Why should it be assumed that other Native owners will not thankfully accept as good an arrangement, if not a better? Opposition, after all, is only a bogey, even when sincerely put forward by such good men as Dr Maunsell, who I suspect only think of, and live as it were in, long past times.—I am, &c.,

[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.,

(The. Editor Poverty Bay Herald.)

Sir,—In your leader last night you are not fair to the Administration Act of 1886 when you say that under it "a man with small means would have absolutely no chance of obtaining an acre," and when you clearly imply that under it the land would not pass through the Crown. Section 29 expressly provides that the Commissioner shall dispose of the land "in accordance with the provisions of the Land Act 1885, or of any Act passed in substitution thereof, and he (the Commissioner that is) shall have all the powers of a Land Board." And section prohibits private persons from acquiring and direct from the Natives. A man of small means could of course acquire through the Commissioner, just as lie could from a Land Board. These are the strong points of the Act, and its virtues ought to be acknowledged. Its weak points are :—(1) the voluntary character of its provisions—Natives need not have come under it unless they liked, might keep rloof as long as they like; and (2) the powers given to Committees to direct the Commissioner as to laud to be dealt with, and the terms on which the same might be disposed of. Not-withstanding, in my opinion it was by far the best scheme embodied in legislation upon the lines of Native Committee management. Its weak points really only spring from an evident desire to act justly to the Natives, and to carry them along with the forward movement. If there is to be compromise at all it must be in the same direction, though in my opinion Native Committee management in any shape or form will only end in smoke, if nothing worse.—I am, &c.,

(The Editor Poverty Bay Herald.)

Sir,—Your leader last night tempts me to say that you hardly do the "Devil's Brigade" justice. That brigade, regarded as a whole, is a fair reflex of the community, to my mind, because unquestionably the objectionable ones exist on the ordinary principle of demand and supply, and there must be at least a section of the community which requires them. My only complaint as to the profession, in the letter referred to, was the opposition almost always shown by it to anything like simplification. A recentwriter says that it is more difficult to get a new idea into the mind of an Englishman than it is to get the proverbial joke into the head of a Scotchman; and that, I think, is eminently true of the English lawyer. He is mentally saturated, as it were, with musty precedents, and it is quite natural to him to refuse to sec any advantage in moving out of the beaten track. Hence he needs to be driven by lay pressure into reformation of any kind. No better illustration of this can well be got than the fact that a young community like New Zealand, full of energy and push, can sit down and patiently acquiesce in the existence of such an incubus as our half-yearly itinerant Supreme Court, with its delays and expense, and general cumbrousness, all the fruit, specially, of the legal mind. One would expect that the settlement of disputes quickly and cheaply by a good local Court, with an appeal on facts, is a thing such a community requires. No doubt it is so. Yet we are all content to leave things alone. Why? Just because we have it. The same thing is applicable to Native legislation. But it is only fair to the devil's own to add that, if Native legislation had always been shaped finally by the lawyers, it would have been at any rate consistent, or fairly consistent, as a whole. It was never so though, for after a Bill came out of the legal draftsman's hands, it was invariably tossed about in Committee by all sorts of people, particularly by the "expert" members who looked at it in some particular interest, or with some special object to be served, until the draftsman's work was hardly recognisable. Of course a tangled maze of legislation was the result. Why should you accuse the lawyers of having "a double sin to answer for in this Native 'business?'" They have no doubt enough to answer for; but Parliament alone is answerable for the making of the laws; and it must be admitted that it hss always been an extremely difficult business to interpret the laws so made. Editors, I believe, are more or less given to dogmatise, and they can always construct a telling paragraph by making a scrapegoat of the lawyers. You might now give the wily Native land purchaser a turn, he who needs and uses the lawyer. Fair play is a jewel. Jay Gould, you know, never came to the front when he had any big public robbery on hand; he always accomplished his nefarious work by using weaker men. So does the wily Native land purchaser. All Native land purchasers are not wily of course.—I am, &c.,