THE MOKAU CASE.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 899, 19 August 1910, Page 4

THE MOKAU CASE.

A good deal' of interest appears to have been aroused in what has become known as the Mokau case. The history of this case from the point of view of Mr. Joshua Jones was summarised in a petition presented to the House of Representatives a few days ago. In the course of this petition Mn. Jones made a /lumber of allegations of a serious nature, some of which were replied to by the Attorney-General a few days later in a personal explanation to the Legislative Council. We do not think it desirable at the pre: sent stage to discuss the pros and corns of this matter. Our purpose in referring to it is rather to point out how very unsatisfactory the position is at the present moment, and will continue to be, unless Parliament ■ giants the full inquiry asked for by Mk. Jones. In -190S a Committee of the Legislative Council, after hearing evidence on tlie subject of Mil. Jones's claims, reported as follows: —

The-Committee has given the subject matter of the petition much consideration, and has token a considerable amount of evidence thereon. The Committee recommends, that the Government should refer the case to a IJoyiil Commission or other competent, tribunal* for inquiry, into its merits, and that pending the investigation by that body steps should be taken at r^ce in nrortmf further dealing with the lands in question.

Tnis report was agreed to by the Council and referred to the Government for consideration. It was on October 9, 1908, that this happened, and for two years Mr. Jones has been striving to induce the Government to give effect to the recommendation made. All he asks for apparently is a full and impartial inquiry. It is' difficult to understand why that inquiry has not been granted. According to thc_ Attor-ney-General, there are technical objections, and these to the legal mind naturally carry much weight. But if there is any merit at ail in the recommendations of the Legislative Council Committee' Ministers were warranted in sweeping aside these objections by means' of a short Act of Parliament. An Act of one clause would, have been sufficient. The merits of the matter could then have been finally determined, and these unpleasant charges and countercharges of which Dr. Findlay makes mention would have been disposed 'of in a manner satisfactory to the public! As it is at they seem likely to go on being made indefinitely. That Mr. Jones is deeply impressed with the belief that he is suffering under, heavy injustice' must be obvious; that he has impressed the 'Committee of' the Legislative Council which investigated his case With the necessity for adequate inquiry into its merits is equally plain.' Why then refuse him this investigation which should finally clear :up all 'doubt ■in the matter and put a stop to the very unpleasant allegations which, as Dr. Findlay points out, are now being made.