New Guinea Land Laws To Be Tested.

A SOMEWHAT remarkable procedure by the New Guinea Departments of Native Affairs and of Lands has come under the notice of Messrs. W. R.

Carpenter and Co., Ltd., who have sup plied us with summarised particulars.

In December, 1927, the Custodian of Expropriated Properties sold to Miss Caroline Hoffman, 2,350 hectares of vir gin land at Hatzfeldthafen, Madang, for £700. In August, 1928, Miss Hoffman sold this land to Messrs. W. R. Carpen ter and Co., Ltd., who paid the costs of the transfer. Since then the Lands De partment has surveyed some 400 hec tares, but the balance of the property is still unsurveyed.

The firm has now been approached by the Administration who state that the cost of determining the native rights in connection with the unsurveyed portion may be heavy, and it is suggested that the unsurveyed land, therefore, should be returned to the Custodian, who will sell it to the Administration at the same price as was paid for it by Miss Hoff man. Presumably the present owners would receive from the Custodian a cor responding amount.

The firm has declined the proposal and has determined to fight for what is clearly its legal rights. It is pointed out that the principle which the Adminis tration is seeking to establish—namely, the right practically to cancel all sales of land by the Custodian to private per sons—strikes at the very root of com mercial development and financial security in New Guinea.

It appears that the Administration is basing its proposal on what is known as the Malala case.

The Custodian, in the Malala case, sold 5,400 hectares; the purchase pre sently came before the Land Court to determine the natives reserves; and the Court was satisfied that the land had been properly purchased from the na tive owners. A judgment, therefore, was

confidently sought clearing Malala of all native claims. But the Judge of the Land Court exercised the powers con tained in Section 27C of the Lands Reg istration Ordinance (No. 2 of 1922), which section reads as follows: “In the determination of any matters referred to it in connection with native rights, the Court shall not be bound by the principles and rules of Common Law and Equity which were in force in England on the 9th May, 1921, but may be guided by such principles or right and good conscience as it deems to be applicable to the matters referred to it, having regard to the tribal institutions customs and usages of the natives of the Territory and to the con ditions existing in the Territory since its occupa tion by persons other than natives.”

The Judge accordingly deprived the purchaser of Malala of 3,000 hectares which was regarded as the property of certain natives concerned, and allowed the purchases less than 2,500 hectares, comprising the poorest part of the pro perty. The purchasers of Malala and the Custodian felt very strongly about this matter because great care had been taken to deal fairly with all native claims at the time of the purchase.

It is pointed out, in connection with Malala and all other land sales similarly concerned, that under the Ordinance quoted it is quite possible—and indeed probable—that more or less sophisti cated natives can work up some sort of claim affecting almost any land pur chased and which claim may cause an over-conscientious judge to exercise the powers conferred on him under this or dinance in an oppressive manner.

It is in order that the fairness of the system that has developed may be con sidered and the soundness of the Ordin ance questioned that Messrs. W. R. Car penter and Co., Ltd., have determined to fight the case described. They are tak ing this action to establish, if possible, the soundness or otherwise of scores of land purchases which have been made in the Territory of New Guinea during recent years.