MR. HIDE'S CHARGES.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 972, 12 November 1910, Page 3

MR. HIDE'S CHARGES.

CASE AGAINST MR. KAIHAU. TE AKAU SALE. WAS THERE IMPROPRIETY? The Committee of Inquiry into the allegations of Mr. J. B. Hine, M.P., was again occupied yesterday with the charges against Mr. • Henare Kailiau, M.P. Mr. M. Myers appeared for Mr. Hine; Mr. Skerrett, K.C., with him Mr. F. B. Sharp, appeared for Mr. Kaihau. The charge which was beforethe committee on its resumption and throughout the sitting was that Mr. Kaihau, while a member of Parliament,'conducted the sale of portion of Te Akau Block to the Government and received a commission or other sum of money from the Native vendors. The Natives and the Minister. Mr. Edward C. Blomfield, of Auckland, solicitor for Mr. H. Kaihau, fur-, ther examined by Mr. Myers, said that the money to be paid to Mr. Kaihau under agreement with Natives interested in the sale of portion of the Te Akau Block to the Government included his commission for negotiating the sale, but that was a minor matter, as the work in connection with the Appellate Court was very considerable. The Native agents for the Ngatipare (for whom Mr. Kaihau did not act) got £2200, less counsel's fee (about £500), which was paid to Mr. Bell, and was not at all excessive in consideration of the length of the proceedings, and the value of his arguments. The Native Minister knew nothing about the preparation by witness of the agreement between Mr. Kaihau and other Natives in regard to the projected sale. When Mr. Patterson, land purchase officer, told witness that the Government would .not recognise Mr. Kaihau as agent, witness did not know of any arrangement between the Native Minister and any Natives for the purchase of the land at £2 an acre. : Such an arrangement would not'bind the Natives unless all tlose interested gave their adherence to it. Between 1904 and the sitting of the Appellate Court in 1907, Mr. Kaihau's party were not in the title to the 13,000 acres which were sold to the Government, but the Ngatipare, who received advances, were in the title. Prior to the' sitting of the Native Appellate Court witness had nothing to do with the negotiations for the sale, and after that his only connection with it was the statement made to him that Mr. Kaihau would not be recognised as agent by the Government. He did not know what may have passed • between Mr. Kaihau and others. The agreement. drafted by witness as between certain Natives and the Native Minister was sent by one of the Natives to the .Native Minister, who immediately sent it back with an intimation that he could not be a party to it.

Was the Commission Excessive? To Sir. Skerrett: The interest of the Ngatitahinga (for whom Mr. Kaihau acted) in tho portion of the block sold was. £17,000, and the Ngatipare £6700, so that the rate of commission paid by the Ngatipare was much greater than that paid by the Ngatitahinga. Nativo agents. always charged foes at a .higher rate than legal practitioners. Mr. Skerrett: Do you think the rate of commission realised by Mr. Kaihau was in any way increased by the prospect of a sale to tho Crown? Mr. Myers objected to this question. ■Mr.-Skerrett: Well, he said to you that the sale to the Crown was a minor matter. I will let it go at that. Witness: An investigation which took' three months' solid work before tho Court would mean much more work than a sale. ■ To Mr. Skerrett: It was not possible for the Crown to enter into any definite agreement for the purchase of the land before the judgment of the Appellate Court, but there might be a tentativo or conditional understanding, which might be colloquially referred to as an agreement. Ho had never heard from the Ngatitahinga anj complaint that the money paid to Mr. Kainau was excessive, or was paid without their consent. Mr. Myers - protested against Mr. Blomfield giving hearsay evidence Mr. Massey's Questions. Witness, referring to questions asked on the previous day by Mr. Massey concerning Judge Brown, said that tlu-ro was an affidavit that would clear the whole matter, up. . Mr. Massey: I have got the whole report here. That is enough for me. To Mr. Skerrett: There was among the agents for the Ngatipare a member of Parliament (not Sir. Kaihau) who received a payment. Mr. Massey: Do" you know whether Mr. Kaihau received a payment for his share in the land?—"l know that he did not."

Did the £2000 paid to Mr, Kaihau include payments for looking after different petitions before the Native Affairs Committee P —"l did not know that it did. I did not hear that he appeared." Witness also said he was not aware that Mr. Kaihau was working in 1905 in the interests of the Ngatitahinga tribe in connection with the titles to Te Akau Block. Judge Brown had denied that he had attempted to negotiate a sale of the land. Para had told witness that he and other Natives met and decided to give Mr. Kaihau £2000 as "his fee. He did not know that Mr. Kaihau was acting for tho Native owners of the Moerangi Block, which the Native Department now desired te purchase. ' What are the qualifications of a Native agent?—"He may be quite ignorant, or on the other hand he may have knowledge that makes his services of more value than those of any lawyer." The Privy Council. To Mr. Allen; Is the title to the 13,000 acres likely to come before the Privy Council?—"l believe they have obtained leave te appeal. Whether they will appeal, I don't know." Suppose the Privy Council reverses tho ownership of the 13,000 acres, what will be the position?—" The Privy Council would not reverse it. They would only send the case back to the Court with directions how to act. This is only a matter of opinion, but I don't think there is a chance of the Privy Council reversing it." To Mr. Reed; Mr. Brown had been Native Land Registrar and Judge, but not land purchase officer, so far as witness knew.

Counsel "Sparring." Mr. Skerrett said he would like to point out that the committee now had almost the complete facts regarding the first charge against Mr. Kaihau. Mr. Myers said there was other evidence which he wished to call, and which was essential to enable the committee to come to a proper conclusion. The committee would doubtless desire to go into the question whether Mr. Kaihau's connection with the transaction was proper. Mr. Skerrett: This is a speech on the merits. Mr'. Myers-: No, it is not. He was only answering Mr. Skerrett's remark that the committee had all the facts before it, and he wished to say that the 'committee had not by any means had all the evidence which he considered was essential to enable the committee to say wh other the transaction : was a proper one.

- Tho chairman (Mr; J. A. Hanau) read the chargo, and asked whether tho further evidence which Mr. Myers desired to addpee was connected with the chargo or with some other fssue. Mr. Myers said it was connected with tho charge. Otherwise he would not tender it. Tho chairman said the charge did not state that Mr. Kaihau's connection with the sale was improper. That was an issue raised by Mr. Myers. Sir. Myers: Surely, the committee will desire to dotermine whether it was improper or not? They may desire to make sonio recommendation in regard to legislation on the Standing Orders, and how can they do so unless they have all the facts?

Mr. Skerrett insisted that the committee had the facts, and could determine for itself whether the transaction was improper or not. It was bound by its order of reference, and would have to go hack to Parliament if it wished tho order enlarged. _ The chairman: The committee has decidod not to take any other charges after to-day. Moro Evidence to Come. Mr. Myers said he would tender evidence to show that some of the hearsay evidence given by Mr. Blomfield was not correct. Mr. Blomfield had said that according to his information Mr. Kaihau's connection with tho sale ceased, and tho Government then negotiated direct with the Natives. Surely it would be relevant to show whether the Government did negotiate direct? In the course of further discussion, Mr. Myers said he wanted to call Mr. Grace, who actually conducted the negotiations. Mr. Skerrett said he would not object to Mr; Grace being called. The chairman: After what Mr. Myers has said, I think Mr. Grace should be Mr. Myers said he would probably call only two or three more witnesses, and he did not think they would occupy much time. The committee then deliberated m camera, and shortly afterwards adjourned.