EVENING SITTING.

Press, Volume LI, Issue 8930, 22 October 1894, Page 6

EVENING SITTING.

The Home res_med. at 8 p.m. I'OMAHAKA PURCHASE. Mr J. M'KENZIE moved—"That the report of the Pomahaka Purchase Committee be adopted and entered on the journals of the Mouse." He did not. know that it was necessary for him to move the motion at all, so. far. as he was personally concerned, but as some odium had been cast on his department, he felt bound to defend his officers. He referred to the charges of corruption made against him by nis opponent at the late elections in connection with this purchase. A large number of people did not believe the charges mtfde against him, and the result of their being made was that he was returned by a majority of 325 over his opponent at the election. Those charges having been made against him, he had moved that they should be heard by the Waste Lands Committee, and the report of that Committee was now before the House. Their report was to the effect that, so far as he (Mr M'Kenzie) was personally concerned, and his department also, nothing whatever had been proved •gsihsfc them. He believed that the decision was unanimous on the part of the Committee. The reason for those charges being made against him was because it had fallen to his lot to expose the doings of some of the financial rings in the colony. The opposition against him was so bitter in co_hequence that nothing would have pleased certain people better than the defeat of the Minister for Lands at the last election. He had been attacked not only publicly, bat his private -flairs and those of bis family were also dragged before the public of the colony. After referring in Strong terms to the action of some of his opponents in the South Island, and to t>>e nature of the opposition they had-shown him, he said his opponent in his desperation became a willing tool of those people, in order to defame him (Mr M'Kenzie) and to endeavour to keep him out of the House. It had been freely stated by the Tory Press that the Pomahaka purchase was a bad one for the colony ; but it had been proved to be quite the contrary. He had complained of the unfair treatment he had received from the Otago Daily Times ; but when the gentlemen connected with that paper were aaked to come before the Committee and substantiate their charges they refused to do so. ; There was nothing but a continual falsifying of facts in connection with this matter. The result of the enquiry made into this matter was that there was no truth whatever iv the statements made against him by imputation and iuaendo. There was no evidence whatever that there had been anything wrong with the Pomahaka purchase. The only evidence given was as to the value of the property, but if Ihey were to believe what they were told by some people and Mr Scobie Mackenzie, the twenty-one settlers who took up the land on the Pomahaka estate were all fools. When he stated that those twenty-one settlers gave 4 per cent, to the colony on their purchase, it would be seen that those men did not consider they had given too much for the laud. The report of the Committee showed that everything that had been done iv regard to Pomahaka was done in accordance with law. It had also been clearly shown that only a fair value had been given for this land. It had been further shown that bis opponent had no ground for the charges he had made against him, charges which he should have made openly and should have withdrawn when he found they were not correct. Sir R. STOUT complained of the way the report was drawn up, and said the counsel before the Committee must have so strongly influenced the member for Waimea-Picton that the latter in drawing up the report had used the identical language, paragraph after paragraph, of the counsel. He quoted several passages of the report in proof of what he had stated, and said there was no difference between the speech of the counsel and the report of the Committee. They were w fact the written report of one man. He did not blame the Ministers for this, bnt hoi«d it would be a warning to other Coinimtteesnot to draw up a report in such judicial Lmgoage. Referring to the report ilseli, he was not sure whether the evidence showed that the colony got a good bargain. _>t all the witnesses only two were not implicated or concerned in the purchase in some way. He disapproved of the finding ol the Committee in other ways, and did 2___f°* lUt «*• evidence bore out that

Mr MILLS said the Committee had before it the speeches of Messrs Fitchett and Scobie Mackenzie, and possibly they had used some of the language adopted by the former when drawing up the report. They had also a report from Sir Robert Stout before the Committee, and that resembled so much some of the language used by Mr Scobie Mackenzie that he (Mr Mills) believed the latter had more to do with drawing up that report than Sir Robert. Stout had. He reviewed portions of the evidence taken before the Committee, and said Mr Scobie Mackenzie's evidence was a j tissue of contradiction-. He (Mr Scobie Mackeuzte) admitted he had never seen the laud in question, so that he must have been j speaking from hearsay. Ia the face of the evidence taken, Sir Robert Stout brought down a wishy-washy- report to the Committee which did neither one thing nor the other, and neither censured nor cleared the Minister for Lands or his officers. The Committee were unanimous, he said, on two points, viz., that there was no reflection on the Minister or on the officer, of the Lands [ Department. j Mr McGOWAN said Sir Robert Stout ! had entirely exonerated Mr M'Kenzie and his Department over the purchase, and yet he eai.i immediately afterwards that he regretted the enquiry had been held, and that the report was not judicial in tone. He could, therefore, scarcely understand tbe position taken up by that gentleman on this affair. Mr MEREDITH, as a member of the Waste Lands Committee, said be would have thought more of Mr Scobie Mackenzie if he had made the charges he had made against the Minister for Lands in an open and straightforward manner. He regretted that this motion should have been brought before the House at all, but he was of the same opinion as Sir Robert Stout, that there was no foundation for the charge of corruption made by implication and inuendo against the Minister for Lands and his Department over this Pomahaka purchase. The cost of the enquiry amounted to £300, and the responsibility for that rested with Mr Scobie Mackenzie. Mr GREEN referred to the speech just made by Mr John M'Kenzie, and said that whilst he agreed with Sir R. Stout that no charge of corruption had been proved against Mr M'Kenzie or his department, still Mr M'Kenzie himself had just made far more serious charges agaiust certain gentlemen connected with this matter than had ever been made against him in connection with the Pomahaka purchase. He regretted very much to have heard Mr M'Kenzie tell the House that an officer of the Union Bank had given false testimony before the Committee, and thought that the Minister for Lands, who was so much exercised over a statement against him on a public platform, Bhould not himself make such serious charges on the floor of the House against other gentlemen. His opinion of the evidence differed very much from that of other gentlemen on the Committee. It showed that several things were done by Mr McKenzie's department without his knowledge or consent, and it alao showed that the petition respecting the Pomahaka purchase was not by the settlers of the district at all, but by interested parties. He referred at some length to the nature of the evidence taken. There was some conflict as to the value of the land, but it was only a slight difference, aud one of Mr McKenzie's own officers had stated that the people in the district considered they had paid too high a price for the land. j Mr M'KENZIE—They said nothing of j the sort. Mr GREEN repeated his statement, and said be had read the report and was prepared to adhere to his statement. He, at any rate, did not consider the inquiry was worth the money it had cost, and nothing would come of it. The people of the district had quite made up their minds on the matter, and did not want any inquiry of this kind. Mr G. HUTCHISON said tbii matter pr-ese__it<ecL itself to ____-__-. in three aspects. _Er_jc__t_ they had _.__«_ ___L______at>e_r for* J__—_x_.<st-s x_._>— ill ipmoiimiiiupß ■_ —.is own department; then they _.——. —. great laud owner graciously permitting his landto be taken for settlement, and actually giving it away. Then they saw a. group of zealous officers who were most anxious to take all the responsibility for the Minister in connection with this ——ttet. They also found, from the evidence, that within six weeka of the Minister becoming aware of the matter a great estate was burst. Tbey, therefore, saw the colony in possession of a large estate, whilst a great land owner was relieved from bis liabilities. Referring to the petition received about the purchase of Pomahaka, Mr Douglas at first apparently did nob admit he drew up the petition, but afterwards did so. The petition was supposed to come from the settlers of the district, bur. ic must be remembered that there were no settlers, or would-be settlers, turning their attention to Pomahaka at all. This application was forwarded on the 25th of August to the Commissioner of Crown L-nds. After detailing a considerable portion of the evidence he. said it wis difficult to say which bo ad mire most, the masterly inactivity of the Minister, or the masterly activity of the officials, or the self-sacrifice of the patrician. With respect to the nature of the report, he congratulated the Minister on having so successfully initiated such a judicial style. - Mr ALLEN said the enquiring into this purchase was a mistake, as they knew by experience what Parliamentary Committees were and what their reports were worth. Two of the speakers iv the debate attributed the cost of the inquiry to Mr Scobie Mackenzie, but no portion of the evidence showed that Mr Scobie Mackenzie asked for the inquiry. The Minister for Lands set up the Committee and Mr Scobie Mackenzie was asked to • attend it, and as had been pointed out by Sir R. Stout and Mr Hutchison the counsel for the Minister practically drew up the report. The Minister's sanction respecting this purchase was very different from the occasion when Mr Richardson, the late Minister for Lands, asked for an enquiry into serious charges made against him when he was in Opposition. That enquiry, however, was refused to Mr Richardson by the present Government, although Mr Richardson offered to allow any member whom the Government might choose to be put ou it. No Committee of the House, which contained seven Government supporters and four of the Opposition, as in the present case, was a judicial committee, and their report could not be considered an impartial one. Referring to the evidence) he said, looking at all the circumstances of the purchase and know ing that the individual principally concerned was anxious to get rid of it, and that if it were not got rid of by a certain date it would be sold by the Bank, there was an element of doubt as to the value of the land purchased. As to the* petition asking for the land to be purchased, he asserted that he knew for a fact that paid canvassers were employed to gee signatures to the petition, and they weie not allowed to sign by any other occupation than that of "settler." Wbat value, therefore, could be placed oa a pet ition if got up in this way? Although 325 people signed this petition not one of them was now on the land. The Minister stated, in his evidence, that Mr Ritchie knew nothing of the matter; but he (Mr Allen) asserted that it was Mr Ritchie who started the affair in the first instance, by informing Mr Barron that Mr Douglas was willing to sell the land. The M ioister said the deputation was the reason of his purchasing the land. Mr M'KENZIE- No; I said the'first I knew of it wa_ through the petition. Mr ALLEN read Mr M'Kenzie'e own evidence before the Committee, which stated that the first he knew of it was ten months before Mr D.uglas made the offer. They also had it in evidence tbat the Government Valuer said this property was worth ouly 3s per acre ou an average, and yet tbe Government had let it at not leas than 3% and as high as 4s 31 per acre, which he thought was hardly justifiable. Mr HOGG said the Waste Lands Committee made every effort to secure all the witnesses who were likely to throw any light on this transaction, and the fullest possible facilities were given to those who made the charges both iv the Press and on the plattorm. It was said that the enquiry would be a farce, but the evidence would show that every member of the Committee, without reference to party, put any question he liked to the witnesses. He admitted that petitions were prepared iv moßt cases by those who were interested in them, and, that being so, he saw no particular reason why Mr Douglas should be blamed ia .his respect. He alao bald that

' Mr Ritchie had a perfect right to speak to Mr Barron about this purchase. The report brought up was based on the evidence, and that contained a complete refutation of the charges made against the Minister for Lands. Mr SEDDON moved the adjournment of the debate. i Agreed to. j The House rose at 11.50 p.m.