PRICE OF SETTLEMENT.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 2574, 7 August 1909, Page 6

PRICE OF SETTLEMENT.

ARE AYE TO PAY THE MAORI FOR DOING NOTHING.

(’’The Citizen.”)

The Native land question is likely to occupy much attention during the cornicing session of Parliament. In the north tlic-re is a feeling that the time has come when the. obstacle should be broken down. Freeholders and leaseholders are one in their fixed determination to force their' Parliamentary representatives to take action. The freeholder naturally desires one of two courses :Either that the State should purchase the Native lands and distribute them amongst the European settlers on the optional principle, or that the Maori titles should oc individualised and the Ifafive, in respect of his land, placed on a footing of absolute equality with his white fellow-subject. The hoped-for result would be the same in either ease; the fee-simple of the soil would ultimately find its way into European hands. The supporters of the rival theory of land tenure—leaseholders, land nationalisers, or what not —desire to sec the land acquired in order that they may be settled on the basis of State-ownership. Both sides are totally averse to tho prospect .opened up by the conclusions of the late Iloyal Commission, composed of Sir Robert Stout and Air. Ngata. Under no circumstances are. they ready, to accept a system of Alaori landlordism. Considering that all the North Island, and particularly the Province of Auckland, has suffered at the hands of Alaori obstructionists and Native land legislation, it is a striking testimony to the fairness of the Anglo-Saxon mind that we hear so little about the extraordinary and (as it affects the "white colonists) unjust instrument, the Treaty of AVaitangi. The phrase “chose juge,” which is so often on the lips of the French and so seldom on ours, yet expresses a sentiment -which we feel much more -strongly that Britain’s nearest neighbors. AVe have accepted the AVaitangi Treaty, though no other people, having been so foolish as to make it, would have observed it so rigidly, both in letter and in spirit, as we have. Have we not._indeed, observed it much too rigidly? All that the Natives were justly entitled to demand from Governor Hobson, as the Sovereign's . representative, was the confirmation and defence of their right to all the land they occupied (and they < did not “hunt over” any as the North American Indians did, having nothing to hunt), all the water they fished in, and all the tracks and waterways they used. The authorities saw fit to give the natives more than they had an}' right to ask for —they gave them, in short, everything. All the soil from Cape Reinga to the Bluff was acknowledged to belong to a handful of aboriginals, whose eyes never beheld a quarter of the vast territory, and whose feet never touched a twentieth part of it. Very well. Tho deed was done, and we have never sought to repudiate it,, or 'bo whittle away a,.single clause of the egregious bargain with -the exception of the few thousand acres confiscated as some compensation for tho cost of putting down a flagrant and ungrateful rebellion. Ever-- foot of soil occupied by the white settler to-day has boon paid for in hard cash. That was part of the bargain. But was it part of the' bargain that we should pay according to a perpetually increasing rate, even though the increase should be caused solely by the industry of, the new comers? AVould it not have been in strict keeping with the terms of the famous Treaty if we had from that day to this,- paid no more, and no less, than the actual un•improved value of the land on the day when British Sovereignty was . proclaimed? , . The. Maoris themselves have done nothing whatever in the long interval to enhance the value of the land. On the contrary, they have done something at

least to deteriorate it. They have permitted thousands and thousands or acres to become nursery grounds tor noxious weeds and have not contributed anything to the cost of the opening up of the country. Thqre would bo nothing immoral in the. suggestion that the State should proceed to acquire, from time to time, as much of the Maori hind as the settlement of the Dominion requires at the original valuation, reserving only such areas as may be needed for Native ‘occupation.” the only alternatives, and these which are at present available, arc either detrimental to the European or to the Maori. ~ If ive legalise the Maori landlord system, it will be a distinct injustice to the white population of tho State and o! no permanent • benefit to the Natives, who will sink deeper into habits ol sloth If we individualise the Maori titles and give the Natives the same right to deal with their land as the European enjoys, the high prices obtained for the land 1 will simply mean so much money squandered. AA hichever. of those courses we follow, the European will be penalised and the Maori will be spoiled. If, on the other hand, the soil is resumed by the State at the only value which the Native may j 118 * 1 " lv and morally claim.-the State would profit by the realisation of the increment which it has created, settlement would he promoted on terms that would ensure the immediate occupation of the whole cultivable area of the Island, and tlie Maori would be compelled to adopt a life of work and thrift that would speedily lead to his redemption.