The Gisborne Times PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. SATURDAY. OCTOBER 7, 1911.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 3342, 7 October 1911, Page 4

The Gisborne Times PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. SATURDAY. OCTOBER 7, 1911.

There has not yet appeared any Ministerial statement

Mor2 About Wharekahika.

with reference to the important matter at issue in

the dispute which lias arisen between Mr Fisher, the Under-Secretary for Native Affairs, and Mr Keefer, Presidei rof the Tairawhiti Maori Land Board. Mr Fisher has, however, put what may be termed the official side of the question. That it is far from satisfactory all fair-minded people will, we think, agree. Briefly put,, the position is that the Board lias granted quite a number of applications which will permit the grantees to enter into negotiations with the Native owners for the alienation of areas in the Wharekahika block. This, it is claimed by Mr Keefer, is permissi- | ble under section 209 of the Native lLand Act, 1909. Oil the other hand, {Mr Fisher avers that the intention of &tlie law as regards this matter has been ff'learly misrepresented. In view of the 'Sact that the area of the block was, he 'lays, over 40,000 acres, no alienations ,*onld be effected until, by course of partitions, the areas to> be dealt with Jtere brought within the limit as set ■flown in the limitation of area, part of the Native Land Act. For our own

part, as we stated.the othei day, at a loss to understand why Mr 11 did not question the granting of t consents at an earlier date. It auII seen by reference to our news columns that the total number of applications granted by the Board was 10. s aback as February the initial applications were granted, and almost every month since has witnessed the granting of additional consents. Not only has notice of these applications appear ed in the press, but they have also been gazetted. And yet Mr I says that the fact was unknown to him until quite recently ! Equally hard to understand is a statement by Mi I J s )- er that the power to grant consents was meant to be used “only on veij rare occasions,” and hitherto was iecognised by the majority of the pte.odents as only allowed to work where the actual area being alienated had been definitely allocated. We are not in a position to say what has been the experience in other districts, but it is well-known that this was not by any means the first occasion upon which consents had been granted in this district. When the Native Land Bill was introduced it is true that it was stated in a summary of the measure that it was proposed that this right should l he approved only “in special cases.” As far as we can gather, however, there is nothing in the Act which so restricts the use of this form of alienating a piece of Native land. That this was recognised when the measure became law is clear from a glance at the official summary of the Bill as passed. No reference, it appears, is there made to any restriction of the provision to “special cases.” If a board Is of opinion that the proceedings relating to assembled owners are not necessary, itis empowered to grant the consent. Nor is it easy to understand how Mr Fisher should come to say that the first thing that a board lias to be satisfied upon is the actual area,* that persons are leasing, that they rentals are adequate, and that the aAa is not beyond the maximum that js permitted to be held. That may have been the intention of the Government, but it is clearly not expressed in the statute, which lias reference to the “making of any alienation.” As to Jthe matters to which Mr FisherV alludes, the Board does not need to satisfy itself until the applicant forwards' tlje agreement for confirmation. The applicant must then produce, before confirmation is allowed, a sworn declaration that he is not ineligible to hold the lease. If Mr Fisher be correct, that consents were only to be granted on rare occasions, is it not surprising that the Government should take the trouble to i>rint off the necessary forms by the thousand ? Why, before us lies a copy of an application form for consent which, upon its face, hears evidence of the fact that it was one of a batch of 3000. whilst a copy cf the declaration form is one of a batch of 6000! We do not know what Mr Fisher means when he says that he became aware of what was going on only “when, from applications at the office from persons as to procedure by which they could get into a syndicate that was obtaining the Coast lands, caused me to make inquiries.” With a view to showing the class of people who are desirous of taking up areas in the block, we .publish this morning a list of the applicants to date for consents. As far as this block is concerned at any rate, the public will now be better able to judge as to whether it is being “mopped up” as Mr Fisher would suggest. But equally important is the question as to what is to be the position in the future. So far it will be seen fifteen applications have been granted, but five have been hung up. Is this fair? Then again, the same principle must apply in the case of many other blocks. Under the Act the right to grant or refuse such a consent is in the absolute discretion of the board. If, however, the president and members of a board are to take their instructions in such a matter from headquarters, the power will be found to vest nominally in the board, but in reality in the Government.