The Clutha Leader. BALCLUTHA: FRIDAY, AUG. 11. NATIVE LAND JOBBING.

Clutha Leader, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 11, 11 August 1911, Page 5

The Clutha Leader. BALCLUTHA: FRIDAY, AUG. 11. NATIVE LAND JOBBING.

Some attention has been directed lately to the trafficking by syndicate* that is taking place in the North friend in regard to Native Lands. We were told in a Wellington telegram some weeks ago that Mr D. M. Findlay, solicitor, brother of the AttorneyGefleral, had gone Home with some valuable timber concessions in his pocket to offer, on behalf of a syndicate in New Zealand, to foreign capitalists. We do not know whether this refers to what is known as the Mokau Estate, which is particularly before the public at present, but if not there must be two pretty large syndicates at work instead of one. In his speech at Auckland recently, Mr Massey said that the Act stated that no European can purchase more than 400 acres of first-class land from Native owners. But there is another •ection in the Act which says that "when it is in the public interest" the Governor may by Order-in-Council "issue a title." Under this "public interest" section a block of 50,000 acres was dealt with and a freehold title given. "The lawyers who acted for the individual who owned the mortgage, and who was purchasing the land from the Natives," Mr Massey continued, "were Pindlay, Dalziel & Co.. The gentleman who signed the Order-in-Council was Sir James Carroll, Acting Prime Minister. The chairman of the syndicate is an exMinister of Lands, of very strong leasehold proclivities—Mr Robert McNab." Mr Massey naturally wants to know why this 50,000 acres had been allowed to pass into the hands of speculators instead of bona fide settlers. The question has not been answered. Mr Charles A. Loughnan, lolicitor for the Mokau Coal and Estate Campany, writes to the Palmeriton North paper trying to pull Mr Robert McNab, who by the way is trying, with some success, to wob the suffrages of the electors there, "out of the soup," and offers to stake £IOO and refer the matter to a local jury, but, having regard to the remarkable composure exhibited at Palmerston North at the time of the Powelka scare a few months ago. it is not likely that the verdict of any jury there would be very convincing. However, on second thoughts, Mr Loughnan appears to have repented him of his valiancy. Possibly his conviction that he had put his foot in it was strengthened bv the prompness with which the Wellington "Post" pointed out one of Mr Massey's statements that was both "accurate and material"—viz., that Mr McNab was chairman of the Mokau Company. It did not suggest that that was the only accurate statement maide by the Leader of the Opposition, but it was certainly one of the most obviously true. Mr Loughnan thereupon lost no time in varying the terms of his challenge, the acceptance of which, as it stands now, is so hedged about with pseudo-legal conditions as to make it unlikely that it will be taken up. Sir James Carroll has himself tried to put a new face on the position without any success whatever. And the New Zealand Times tackled the subject with considerable ingenuity, and tried to call to its aid a witness in the person of Mr H. D. Bell, K.C., probably the best authority on Native Land Laws in the Dominion, who represented some of the Native owners, But Mr Bell had no trouble in flooring the N.Z. Times. He wrote to that paper as follows :

Sir, this morning on the subject' of the Mokau lands you say: ' If any injustice had threatened the Maori owners, or had there been any impropriety about the proceedings, it is not too much to suppose that Mr Bell, K.C., who advised a section of the Natives, would have protected them.' You will, I do not doubt, pve me this opportunity of stating that I did not advise the Natives to •ell. On the contrary, my advice to them was to refuse the terms offered them. I was not present at the meeting of assembled Native owners when the resolution to sell was carried, because the Natives, through their committee, informed me that they did not Squire legal assistance at that meeting, and they had none. Mr Lewis, the assignee of the leases, was entirely within his rights in using all possible aethods to protect himself as the Native Land Commission, consisting of the Chief Justice and the Chief Judge of the Native Land Court, had formally reported to the Governor

that his leases were void or voidable, and that report had been laid before Parliament. He accordingly offered the Natives a large sum in cash for the freehold, but much less than half its actual value. As land alone, without the coal scams discovered, it was clearly a most improvident bargain for the Natives, but the cash tempted them as it had always tempted Natives, to sell their inheritance for v a mess of pottage. I advised them to attack the leases in the Supreme, Court, and all preparations had been made for that attack, which must have succeeded. As to the main lease in which the coal scams lie they elected to take the cash for the freehold, but they had not in that matter the protection you suggest of such advice or assistance as I could afford. Then let mo add that it never occurred to me to advise the Natives that in face of the law limiting the acquisition of Native freehold land to 3000 acres the Government would, without fast laying the matter before Parliament, in direct contravention of the recommend-' ations of the Native Land Commission upon these Mokau lands, issue an Order-in-Council authorising the purchase in one block by one person of more than 50,000 acres of Native freehold. The Native Land Act empowers the Governor, when he finds it necessary "in the public interest" to permit the acquisition of more than 3000 acres. I did not understand this as meaning power to authorise an extension from 3000 to 50,000, nor did 1 see what public interest could be served. Ido not see it now.—H. D. Bell.

"I have never," said Mr Massey. "trafficked in Native Lands, andi I don't know a single member of the Opposition who has. But T know a good number of Government men who have. If there is nothing wrong about the business there can be no objection to an enquiry. lam going to force the question to a division." From the report of a discussion in the House on Tuesday afternoon, which we publish elsewhere, it will be see that "The Native Affairs Committee" is to enquire into the matter, but from the constitution of this committee we are afraid that the result of its deliberation will not be likely to inspire confidence to command much greater respect than would that of Mr Loughnan's proposed Palmers ton North jury.