Page:The Tarankaki question.pdf/7

 << which they never possessed, and claims for them privileges to which they have not a shadow of title. I sympathizo, most sin- cerely with Sir W. Martin in his desire to uphold the national fruth, but I cousider that it is amongst the greatest of misfortunes that Sir W. Martin and other eminent persons, who possCSS influence with the natives, and whose timthi and probity are above question, should entertain ideas so erroneous, and should publish opinions which cannot fail to be reported to the natives, and thus encourage them in resistatice to the Government. by im- pressing their minds with the idea that they are suffering injustice by its dealings with them in respect to their lands. I have no hesitation in saying that the rules which Sir W. mo antes are Martin lays down as established by a singular concurrence of the haid doseru hep best evidence are not rules of native origin. That they have been forcinelausen periods of their dealings in respect to lands, I do not dispute, but astichete mise licy are the matural and nccessary deductions from the proceedings despuled from to which our own.countrymen had recourse in order to obtain an Le Guen balie equitable title to the lands which they purchased from the natives. Grót- first began to look upon land as an object of exchangeable value. Mu pusin Before that period they had as little idea of deriving advantage derued a from its salo as of doriving advantage from the sale of the waters purchase of the ocean, or of the air which they breathed. het die wete abira The boundaries between the land possessed by different tribes Malou ofa or communities, which existed with more or less certainty, were rather a precaution against thoninaods of enemies, than an asser- kerzen tion of title to property in the sense in which it is understood amongst civilized communities. 1 hunden su dideshehen facilis I have not hitherto referred to what is called tribal right;" feleseller which Sir W. Martin describes as overruling individual right in regard to the transfer or sale of land out of the tribe. (page 6,) that “Generally there is no such thing as an individual claim clear and independent of the tribal right." This is a quoted- tion from the report of a board appointed in 1856 to enquire into the White and report upon the state of native affairs, This is again dusufhether they a deduction from the assumption that the natives possessed before the Treaty of Waitangi any rights corresponding to those which may have hak in civilized countries, are defined by law, and maintained by the talhe: low administration of an established Government. In New Zealand, Coen forang punan law had no existence, and there was an equal absence of Hande Suhe authority . No man admitted the night mood another the interfere nelle are " chiefs” of New Zealand, in terms which to our minds convey the Ardurdustdial idea of authority. But the chiefs had no authority. Those werek ted which sumed hina gand i tu mke ni un mierdual committent au act of andhu 4 Mfferent duke e filmolen. Wie hehe He states 'n won - Huotre la bowed to protect theil man ever the guilt, if aliadur