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 24

Letter No. II

page 12

Letter No. II.

Mr J. A. Wilson's case is of so extraordinary a character that it is sure to be brought prominently before the Assembly. As I understand it—and I am informed the same view is taken of it in Auckland—the Government have been shamefully backward in protecting a zealous and conscientious officer, entrusted with duties of a highly important character, and anxious only to perform those duties faithfully. Public interests of a very important character crossed private interests, and the public interests have been made to go to the wall. That is the whole case in brief, and it will demand the most stringent investigation next session, so as to find where the blame lies. Meantime your readers will be glad to know how land purchasing is conducted, and especially as, so far as my observations go, this Native laud question is the one great difference between the North and South Island. It permeates the whole policy of the Government, and is the key to public affairs in the North Island from one end to the other. It has meant, and still means, great fortunes to those who gain possession of these lands, and that in its turn means powerful support or powerful opposition, as the case may be, to the Government of the day, through the tools of these land purchasers, both in Parliament and out of it. They command great wealth, and with it necessarily great influence in a hundred directions. Of all the hot beds for surreptitious land dealings, the east coast of this Island has been notorious for many years as the hottest. The Government were supposed to favour one particular set of men, and to wink at their purchases in this part of the Colony. Having done so, others were encouraged to enter the field, and so the circle of private purchasers has spread until it is a very general belief now, both in Auckland and in this Province, that the sooner Government is relieved of the whole business, and negotiations left entirely to private persons, the better for the public and for the public service.

It may be necessary to state that before native land passes the Court—as the process of establishing the legal title in certain native claims is styled—it is held for the most part tribally. The principal voice in negotiating rests generally with a few leading individuals, but the members of the tribe are all more or less interested. The greatest delicacy is required when a particular chief is found to exercise a mana over the land. This page 13 mana is almost always an ancient right. It is hold sacred among the Natives, and its origin in any particular case may either be lost in antiquity or susceptible of being traced. In either case, there can be no doubt of its existence where it has been long recognised in any chief by the Natives themselves, and to disregard it is dangerous, as we found in the dispute with Wi Kingi, which led to the Taranaki War. It will be manifest also that this right of mana may be falsely claimed by chiefs in opposition to each other—or by a chief set up for the purpose of private speculation, to worry the real owners into acquiescence with their terms. To discover and recognise the true owner is one of the objects of the Court, and the deliberate setting up of these false claimants both to mana and to ownership, who are always backed by any amount of Native evidence, tendered from ill-feeling or from motives of gain, is one of the chief sources of irritation to the genuine owners in dealing with Native lands. When private individuals are concerned, compromises are possible, but when the Government is the purchaser, the question is more difficult, and leads to disloyalty and disaffection. The only safe rule is to be careful not to buy, at any price, land which is the subject of hot disputes, but against this there has always been, unfortunately, the desire of Government to show as large an acreage bought, or in course of negotiation, as possible.

Again, as to the mode of payment, private individuals, except in Hawkes Bay, where I was told the contrary practice had prevailed, always pay in cash. The Government has fallen into a system of enticing the Natives into debt by freely giving them orders on storekeepers for goods and drink, called "rations"—raihana in Maori phrase. It is obvious that this system is open to great abuse. There are storekeepers to favour, and constant opportunities of overcharging and swindling on a great scale. I was told in Auckland that the debt of the Ohinemuri Natives was actually in this way swelled to £26,000. When it had reached this pretty figure, the Government Agent was down upon them. They must either pay for the articles or give land to the value. They could not pay, because they were not allowed to sell the land to private purchasers, so after much haggling and a very great amount of ill-feeling, they came to terms, and sold at the Government's own price. Generally, the Natives take their revenge, if report be true, by passing off, in these cases, the worst land they can at the money. The Government's object is achieved when it can lay a return before Parliament showing the successful result of the year's operations in so many hundred thousand acres bought or leased, and so many millions more "in course of negotiation." I do not say that all the Government purchasers proceed in this way, and Mr Wilson page 14 was mentioned to me at Gisborne—the centre of his district—as a marked exception. But it is said, and as far as I could learn, it is said with truth, that the purchasers who deal in these raihana and who thereby show the largest acreages, are always the most favourably regarded and the most strongly supported at head-quarters.

When Natives desire to offer a block of land for sale, or are induced to do so by the representations of the Government purchaser, a meeting of the whole tribe is convened. Every transaction, to be safe, should be conducted openly and in the broadest daylight. If the meeting is in favour of the sale it will say so through the principal persons interested—i.e., through those who, by inheritance, or by any other title, possess the largest share of the land in question. If the meeting be averse to the sale, the negotiations should be at once abandoned, for the greater the apparent desire of the purchaser the greater will be the reluctance of the Natives to sell. If the decision be favourable, other meetings will be requisite, and at these meetings the price and all other matters should be settled in writing, and in the fullest detail as to claimants, boundaries, &c. The signatures of as many claimants as possible should also be obtained. They should undertake to see the survey carried out, to assist in the execution of the same, and to pass the land through the Court at the first opportunity, so as to obtain the order for the issue of a memorial of ownership. The "order" remains in abeyance for seven months to allow time for appeal from other Natives if there be any adverse claimants. If there be none—and there seldom or never are any if the negotiations have been properly conducted, and no private influences to set up false claimants have been brought to bear—the "memorial" is issued to the persons named therein. This may be exchanged for a Crown grant, or Crown grants, according to the desire of the parties themselves. On the strength of the "order," any of the persons named in it may sell his or her individual share, and the purchaser in that case comes in (on the division of the land) for the Crown grant to which the original seller would have been entitled.

On the completion of the agreement to sell, by the signatures of the parties agreed upon at the meeting as the genuine owners, an advance of one-fifth the purchase-money is generally made. This advance is made to the principal chiefs, whose duty it is to distribute it among the tribe and its subsections, according to the rights of each in the land sold. It is an affair entirely among themselves, with which the purchaser is never called upon to interfere.

In a future letter I will put together such information as I have been able to glean about the difficulties often thrown in the page 15 Way of land purchasers in the performance of their very difficult duties. I shall only now say that the more I inquire into the matter the more I am satisfied that this land purchasing by Government has been and is a great mistake. It demoralises both the Government and the public service. It often creates the bitterest ill-feeling on the part of the Natives, who find themselves confined to one customer in whom they have not the least confidence. It has led to the Government playing, for political purposes, into the hands of wealthy speculators. It has exhibited the shameful spectacle of wealthy speculators being able to buy hundreds of thousands of acres, while it is purely impossible for the smaller settler to obtain the least quantity for his own purposes. This is easily to be understood when considering the difficulties and cost of negotiation under the existing system, and when the Government can do so much to impede or assist the operations of the buyer. On all sides I found the opinion expressed that the sooner there is free trade in native lands, under proper supervision, to secure legality of title, the better for the Colony, for the progress of settlement, and for the restoration of good feeling on the part of the Maori towards the Government, which he has learned both to mistrust and detest. I could not learn of any difference that had arisen between settler and native when the former had bought directly from the original owners. As it was pointed out to me, if the former did not take full care to have a good title, he couid not get possession, and possession for any period became, proof of that title in itself. When Government interferes, the case is different. The Natives are compelled to give possession, but they do so under silent protest, and reserve to themselves the right to reclaim possession whenever an opportunity offers. The question is a large one, but, like all other large political questions, half the difficulties disappear when it is approached with an honest desire to settle it, and not with the ulterior personal views to which it seems to have been too long made subordinate.