I have received your letter and now return the enclosures.
Newton’s claim is familiar to me, and I have already decided on its merits; as you will
see by referring to the correspondence on that subject.
As against the Indians he has no claim whatever, there can be no pretense for narrowing
the very
limitedlimited area (about 100 acres) assigned to them as a Reserve; the real question is
between
Newton and Her Majesty’s Government. This will be better understood by the following brief
history of the case —
The Katsy Village has been on Indian Settlement from time immemorial, and the Natives though occasionally
absent, have never relinquished, or by any act of the contumacy forfeited their right
to the land — All Indian settlements are expressly exempted from occupation by the
Pre-emption Acts, and no Settler can legally enter upon land occupied or cultivated
by Indians
oror establish any legal claim thereto. The first Settler at
Kaitsy was a Mr Manson, who it appears transferred his right to
Newton. the former made no claim to the Village site, but
Newton did consult me about occupying it, stating that it had been abandoned by the Indian
Inhabitants; but knowing this to be a fallacy, I advised him not to occupy it, and
told him most distinctly that the land was secured to the Indians and could not be
alienated by the Government.
Newton cannot therefore plead ignorance as to the legal status of the land. Now comes the
gist
ofof the matter the Commissioner of Lands & Works was directed to mark out that and
other Indian Reserves. It appears that through some mistake only 10 acres were included
in the land laid out as
Kaitsy Reserve
; though it was notorious that the Indians occupied and claimed a larger area.
Newton taking advantage of that error notwithstanding the protests of the Indians, and without
waiting to ascertain from the Commissioner of Lands & Works as to the fact of the
remaining portion of the Reserve being open to Pre-emption immediately added it to
his own
claim claim — but on the complaint of the Indians the true line was, by my orders restored,
and if
Newton was a sufferer I think, under the circumstances he has nobody but himself to blame
as he could not be ignorant of the risks he wilfully incurred by that unjustifiable
proceeding.. It is clear that the Indians could not be legally deprived of their inheritance
by the unauthorised act of the Commissioner of Lands & Works — the only question that
remains is, if by the act of that office, liability was incurred on the part of the
Government; and I should simply leave
Newton to
testtest that point, and to seek his remedy by appeal to the Law Court of the Colony —
a course that will deter other attempts at imposition.