MR. HINE'S ALLEGATIONS.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 974, 15 November 1910, Page 6

MR. HINE'S ALLEGATIONS.

ft THE CHARGE AGMST MR. KAiHAU. ; THIISGS GET WAML i MORE ABOUT FLAXBOURME PURCHASE.VALUERS AID THEIR FEES.

1 , '.;;--,:;.-: ' ■ . '■ . . :1 . 1:, , '.' The Hine Allegations Committee of.tlie j-,M House of.-Representatives. put in. a long j- '.-, day. yesterday. 'The proceedings began p<. ftt. 11 o'clock in the morning, when the !■-./j. investigation into the first charge, against K:Mr. Henare Kaihah,.M:P:, was resumed, t :j- bwing to the illness of his mother, Mr. ■I![ Hine was-not able to be present until late 'r'■■': . in;the evening sitting. Mr. Hanan;pref. ■' Bided. : '■■■.'■■' ;'.V Mr. M. Myers, represented Mr; Hine,' i./ While Mr. C. P. Skerrett, 1 K.C., with !;'(■. him Mr. F. B. Sharp, appeared for Mr. £•.'■;■ Kaihau.- The.chargc'.was as follows:— J ■;.■'. "That Henare' Kaihau, in or about ' j- the. year 1906,' while a member of Par■y liaraent, conducted the, sale. to. the . !'.■■ Government of a; portion, of- the Tβ \ "■':':. ■ Akaii Block, and received from the s-";;. vendors a commission .or other >sum f-r.-'j- -of money.". , •'■■-.■•■•. j::v Mr. Myers proceeded to' ■• call further i.V,'evidence..;; ■■-, ~...,.■•,:.'.; ■'; -. •■ W, "■".' The Press Association Again. )'-;'"' -Before the taking of: evidence, Sir r : Joseph Ward mentioned a Press Associa£"(■■'Hon. message concerning which Mr. .w. :-■' H.' Atack,.manager of. the Press Associa- '•'"■■ tion, had given evidence at Tiis. .request. u" : It had-been -stated.- that.the-, message !•■-'(which' referred 'to-'tie. arrival of. Mr.. '. ■ ■ Hine 'at Stratford 'railway station, after ■-:■ making his first reference to:"his oharges ; : dn tlie House) had appeared, in onty one f ■ newspaper. The Premier 'now- stated Pi ithat he had'.ascertained that it appeared. f.. : 'insis papers. - .'■ -, -.■ , ' •,,: i.V. ', Mr. ,-Massey: Did. it appear Tinder .the i ■:', Press Association heading?.:;. , : -.;. K Sir Joseph Ward: 'Yes, it did. r:-: The chairman, and ■ others suggested i ; .that' the Premier should postpone further ! : ;:-- reference to the matter until a more con- !/. venient opportunity.':., ;.•'■' .._: ■,-.■■- ■■■ Paying, Out the, Cheques.

William' Henry . Grace, licensed, inter- :-• : ireter; formerly employed by'the Govern-'■:i-merit-as a Native- land purchase : ofncer, V : : eaid he had to , do with:.the payment.-of. K the Natives for the Te Akau. purchase; ;7 He signed all the cheques on,an impwsv ' : ; i account. .' The first intimation he had ot m the Government , s> intention .to ■ Purchase : '.'■'■■. part , of the block was, in the latter part i-V'";S^l9O6.■•' He" did not; clearly remember i'Y" ■being-informed by Mr. Kensington that U:: Boihe of the Natives hadanterviewed the !■;■■ Native Minister, and.it agreed !-:'--.- that the land should be purchased: at not >:>. less than £2 an acre.- ':What, impressed m- him was an instruction.:that lie was .not. H'-' to have any dealings, with Mr., Kaihau. & •■■ He" arranged : with 'V the,: Natives to ;■> 'meet.', him.? at- Ngaruawahia. on I': ; June : 3. i.-The , M pr«sentativcs. ol >.ga- *-'" tipare were. and; he. gave them if' 'cheques for the purchase money at A^ -an '■■' icre ■ Tue ■ Ngatitahinga (Mr. Kaihaus paid neit?anoV was - Sea 7 Mr. Ka-ihau ; .came to, Ngarua:4ahia: They all ,scemed : :to be w.Umg t> to sell at JS. an acre. Kaihau,asked ti&Vto isiUbeside:.him' while was:paymg V'yl -the Natives',.'but witness did^ not. consent m ,to 'this.- Mr, Kaihau told him was, •i?;r going-to get '10 -per. cent, .from the Na•:•;,';tives for all' his--work m the -matter,. !:. 'and that he had an agreement with,them. \\ : -Witness paid the Natives with some small V- "cheques, and .some, m> ones., ihat was i/ quite a usual thing. Ho did not, so far •! :: as he-was-aware,- give them: separate ! : - .cheques for , Mr." Kaihau's-;'• commission/ i' 'He did hot concern himself with any. payj:: - merits the Maoris • might, have made to il : VMr. laihau. - Witness -signed . all.'- the :'■■■■■ cheques. Mr: '■ Kaihau had. mentioned to 1;'■: .him that, the Natives were' to get Man !■•'.'■ (acre, but had said nothing : about the ll- agency by-which the sale was_ conducted.. ;■" '■''■■'-■' -~'.,'■ .. Arranged." : .;., !:' ;■■ : T6 : 'Mr.' Skerrett: It "was in. October, !'":'11906. that he had the preliminary inti.mai;:^'tioh to hold 'himself '.in readiness. tor I- i'negotiations for ' the purchase .of Te !;, .Akau.: He. had destroyed-'the letter or i'i'. telegram;' '.'-. —';":'.': ■■■':'-■''. ■:' ■ |v : -Did you. in; January, 1907, receive.any ■■'■ ■■' written or verbal instructions from' the ' . land Purchase Department/ to proceed : '.' with negotiations for. the purchase of the Te Akau -'Block-'or any'part of it?— I ; don't thinji it.was that way.:lt had.been 'practically .arranged, and fixed that the ':■:' Wock was to bo bought, or as much as : ; the Government could get, and I was in- )■■ .iformed that about thirty .of the o>vners \ ■'. lobjected.to having their sections joined . ...-with Mr. Kaihau's, and I was instructed ;'•!,■'■ toot- to' negotiate with Mr. Kaihau." :;.' -'":' But ,your : actual instructions were to i- L , match the-proceedings before : the Appeli- -. late Court "on behalf, of the Government?

— "Yes." '.'■'■ ' ■-! ■ ' •■"' ■■■' • ' ..' ■■• '■'■Was' there: anything: , morally to bind ■the Natives to sell; at ,62. an acre before ■you began negotiating ?—"I don't think ; so'. ißut ■-. there was an, idea that they .were .to sell at,.,£2'an acre." .

Are you able to say that the payments were made by you scrupulously to the Natives direct, without any room for the intervention of Mr. Kaihau, or any third person?—" Yes, absolutely." . To Sir Joseph Ward: He had never been asked by any Minister or any of his ißoperior officers to do anything improper iin connection with his duties as land purchase officer. Jle had destroyed the 'letters referred to last May, because he had such a large accumulation, and thonght they would be of no further use, as the transactions were finished. This would not interfere with the Departmental files. ■ .'-■■■ ■ - - To Mr. Myers,' M.P.: '.U'-.. ' ,: -' a lot of work in 'connection with .'the Appellate Court proceedings. He , saw Mr. Kaihau fishtmg very .nara lor people in tho Court. What Mr. Kaihau said in Court.' Thomas N. Fisher, tinder-Secretary of .the Native Department, produced the miniite book of the Appellate Court, Knowing proceedings in the Te Akau case in 1907. •"■ ' '"■■ - ■ . . -,- ■■. This, book showed that on. March 11, Mr. Heke stated, and the judge noted: "The trouble is that Henare Kaihau is to get.a commission of 10 per cent, on all the land sold, so it is to his interest to get as much of the south part of the block as'possible." Another entry on the same date showed that Mr. Kaihau .eaid: "If my. clients give me 10 per cent: or 20 per cent., that, is, our affair. I will accept all that:they, will give me." ■ Witness, . further questioned ..-'bjv Sir.. Myers,'said he had gone through the books that morning with the Native Minister and Mr. Gordon. 'Mr/ Skerrett:. Looks .very, much like espionage, doesn't it? . • '.-

Mr. Myers: No.— 'V ' .'■■ Witness further said'.tlKit any Departmental correspondence with the Minister about Native land purchase: would go through Hγ. Kensington, and would not come under .the notice of witness. He conld find no record' of any instructions from Wellington to the Native Land Court to adjourn the hearing of any applications by the Ta-brais about To Akau. No' instructions ■ to Native Land Court Judges were filed in his Department. He had not got the rnimite boots of the Native Land Court for 100G, but they could be telegraphed for io Auckland. Counsel Become Heated. Mr. Slcerrott:'. I have no objection to these books being produced, but what lias it to do with tho charge? It is perfectly obvious 1 ' what Mr. Myers is suggesting— that letters were written by a Minister to a Judge, directing him what to do abont this block. . he can't find any trace of such a thing on the minute books that have been shown him, 60 now he wants a minute book from Auckland. It is utterly irrelevant to any charge against Air. Kaihan. • • Mt. Myers said no did suggest that some instructions were sent to , the Native Land Court prior to the passing of tb« 1906 Act. ■ .■•■■■-..

Tho chairman: By whom? ■'Mr.,Myefs: That is what I want to find out Mr. Skerrett: You ( won't find it in the minute book, '■ : ' Mr. Myors: I may be able,to trace it from there to the files. ; : . Sir .Joseph ' Ward:' You : don't suggest that Mr. Kaihau sent them? . Mr. Myers. 1 don't know. Mr. Skerrett: I think I had tetter withdraw 'my objection. ' Let Mr. Myers get the minnte hooks. Ho will find nothing in them. . ' ■ . . Mr. Myers: Has my friend had access to.-.something that I have not? ■'.Mr. Skerrett: Of course not. They are in Auckland. ' Mr. Myers said.his object was to find out whether there was any impropriety in the ■ transaction on Mr. Kaihau's part. Sir Joseph : Ward (to the chairman): Will you kindly ask.if Mr. Myers has any implied, charge against anyone else besides Mr. Kaihau. Because, if so, that person should have.been told, and'should have been put on his defence. The chairman read the charge against Mr. Kaihau", (as above), and asked Mr.' Myers, whether the evidence he was leading was for the purpose of establishing 'that.charge.. • ? ■ .■ '•..•■ .; Mr. Reed: I think Sir Joseph Ward's question ought-to be answered to clear the matter up. ■-'. '•■■■,' ; ' The Prime Minister Intervenes. ' Sir' Joseph Ward: Judging from Mr. Myers's examination—which nobody has interfered' with—one cannot but be impressed witlirthe belief that all the time he is leading. evidence on an implied charge against; someone, not ;named. If so, what will be the position of the committee when that comes out, if that person has' not- been in attendance here and has not. been' represented.,. If there is such a charge we ought .to know who the person is. ■ , • '■• ■ - •The chairman said • that a charge against anybody but Mr. Kaihau would be irrelevant. . ,'■ ; ..'. .

Sir Joseph 'Ward:: One-thing is perfectly ' certain. ' .The evidence, we .have been listening 'to' is Ynot. evidence against Mr. Kaihau, so far as any' intellect enables me'to judge.', i .... Mr. Skerrett: On behalf of' Mr. Kaihau, I .withdraw 'my, objection to the produotion of .the.minute book. I could have objected again -and : again against' the latitude' allowed to Mr. Myers. He has been allowed to fish in the most extraordinary, way. I have not prevented him fishing, and I want Mm to say what is tho Result of it. . :, , Mr. Myers: Mr. Skerrett must either object or not object. No' man's letters patent, or position at the Bar can justify him in being rude and discourteous to ; another. .-.,'-'. '.•',.' , The chairman: What' do you wish to prove from the minute-books? Mr. .Myers: The point ■ is: Did Mr. ■Eaihau conduct the sale ? An endeavour has been made to show that he did not. .1 say' that Mr.''.Kensington's' letter of .January 7 shows that he did, and I want to show the'.whole course of the negotiations, and the facts of-the. transaction. "Mr. Skerrett:then cross-examined the witness..-- '.>-i.i->'- li.-.vV.i., . . ._.- ' Can you. imagine how any information wiis. obtained by counsel as to-what went oh in the Minister's.'room between yourself and, the Minister?—" This, morning?" ' 'Yes. I need hardly say■ you made no communication on the matter ?—"Oh, no." \.\-. '•'.•■■' The Cheques Again. ■Robert A.'Patterson, chief accountant in the Lands- Department; and Native Land Purchase Officer,,said,,he was associated with Mr. Grace in the Te Akau purchase, when 13,494 acres were purchased at £2 per acre—.£2o,99B. ; Mr. Myers: I have had the payments made by you added up and checked, and the total is -£23,973 9s. did. Witness explained that there were two deceased'pecplo in the block,'; and theywere treated as non-sellers;, a reserve 'of 400 acreswas returned by agreement to the Native owners; there were "also some minors who were treated as( non-sellers. The money for those shares was paid to the Eeceiver-General. ■ Another person could not be found at the time, and there were advances ■ that had been made to certain- Natives. (Particulars given.) No payments were made at th,at time to Mr. Kaihau, nor to Pepa Kirkwood, but ,£2O was paid to. the latter ten months later for services rendered. 7 To Mr: Skerrett: All land purchase payments were checked by audit, and no payment could have been made to Mr. Kaihau without passing audit. . It was decided, on Sir Joseph Ward's request, to print copies of the butts of the cheques, with the evidence.

Records of Parliament,

Henry Otterson, clerk to the House of Representatives, said the Maori Land Claims Adjustment Act, 1906, containeda clause which authorised the Appellate Court to review previous decisions of the Courts and the' ftoyal Commission as ,to the titles to-Te Akau: This clause was introduced by tho Minister (Mr, Carroll) and'amended by the Native Affairs.Coni r mitteo. A similar clause was moved by Mr. Kaihau to ■be added to the Maori Land Claims Adjustment Bill of the previous year.'. This' was agreed to by the House, but the whole Bill was dropped by the Legislative Council. Sir Joseph Ward caused the division list to 'be put on- record as part of Mr. Otterson's evidence, and remarked that it -showed that all the Opposition 1 members who were in the House at the time voted for Mr. Kaihaii's clause in 1905.

Mr. Masscy protested, and asked what party had to do with such a, division. Mr. AHen emphasised the fact that the clause when introduced by Mr. Kaihau was opposed by the Native Minister, but the latter put it into his own Bill the following year. A Member-of the Tainui Tribe. Remana Nutana, a member of the Tainui tribe, eaid that .he knew more about the To Akau than anyono else he knew. In IS9I the Ngatitahanga beat the Tainuis'in a. Court action about the property: ■Aβ a result of an appeal in 1894, the Tainuis bettered their position to the extent of 20,000, acres. The 13,000 acre block then became the property of the Tainuis. It was in 1904 that the question of boundaries first arose between the parties.. As the result of an inquiry, the Taimris applied for partition. ■ Mr. Sk'errett at this stage objected to tho line of examination, on the ground of irrelevancy. i Mr. My-ers said that what he wanted to sUow'was that a. Government officer went to the then owners (the Tainuis) to endeavour to get them to sell to the Government, threatening that unless they sold they might find that tho. boundaries would be shifted; and upon their refusal to (sell, Mr. Kaihau introduced certain legislation, and the boundaries were shifted. ■: '■ Mr. Skerrett said that this matter was not relevant to tho charge. Did Mr. Myers want >to. amend his charge to one against a Government officer and . the Government? • Mr. Chairman said that he would allow the examination to proceed up to a certain' point. ' Witness deposed that Mr. Sheridan (a Government officer) interviewed him about the land. Mr. Sheridan said: "You had better sell to the Government." Ho I (witness) replied that he did not want to 'sell. Mr. Sheridan then said: "If you don't- eell, we will shift the boundaries." Ultimately, the Ngatitahanga were awarded the block.

To Mr. Skerrett: Mr. Kaihau did not appear for the Ngatifahanga tribe before the Native Appellate Court in ■ February, 1907.

Did yoii not say to Para Haimona that if he joimd- you you could put Kaihau down?—" N0.".-

Did you not say to him that if Kaihau were put down he (Para) would get back tho amount he paid in. commission to Kaihau?—"No."

Did. Para not say that ho had paid tho commission voluntarily, and ho would not assist you?—"I won't answer any more. It is just the same question." You must answer.—"Ten thousand times, 'No.'" Are you sure lie did not say that?— "I forgot. (Warmly): No." . "Not Johnson." I thought all yon Native gentlemen wore good tempered?—"l not in temper; I not Johnson." (Laughter.) Continuing, witness said that he had a conversation with, another Native. Hfc might have said that if Kaihau went down the people would get their money back in regard to the petitions. Will you ewcar that you are not at the bottom of all .these charges against Kaihau?—"l saw. by the paper that a Mr. Hine brought the charges. It was not me. I am not a member of Parliament." Is it not a fact that yon are at the bottom of it?—" No."

Do you know Mr. Hine?—"No." Have you ever spoken to,him?—"No. Or written to him?—" No."

To Mr. Massey: He and Para had been on different sides for many years. A Mr. Brown was present with him when Mr. Sheridan interviewed him. Ho was taken to a room and the door, was looked.

' To the Chairman: Kaihau and himself fought in Court, but were all right outside. ■

To Mr. Massey: The Mr. Brown who saw you with Mr. Sheridan was the Mr. Brown who afterwards sat as a Judge when the case was before the Native Appellate Court. ' To Sir Joseph Ward: All he said to Para was: "Are you with Mr. Kaihauf" Para replied: "Yes." "Shoals of Witnesses." Mr., Skenrett: It is evident that Mr. Myers has taken full advantage of the fact that the Government is to pay all expenses. Shoals of witnesses had been subpoenaed. Mr. Myers: The evidence of a number , , is not, necessary owing to other evidence that was tendered. Mr. Skerrett then mentiond that ho understood that flay had been specially set apart by Parliament in order to ex-, pedite the progress of the inquiry. It now appeared; howevSr, that Mr. Myers ;yas not prepared to go on with the other cases Mr. Myers said that that was hardly the ' position. He , was prepared to go on with any case. But were the witnesses present? : •Mr. Skerrett: Well, this is a-fine.thing. : Mr. Myers: All .1 had to do was to give the names of the witnesses I nroposed to call. I had nothing to do with summoning them. ■>.:■' Mr. Skerrett: I expected that we might be able to complete' the inquiry this evening, or to-morrow morning at the latest. : - Mr. Myers:. If any of the witnesses are here we could go on. In the courso of further discussion, Mr. Myers suggested that if the Prime Minister was going to bring evidence in regard to the charges against Mr. Kaihau, now was "the'time to call it. : The Prime.Minister: I-prefer to wait till the whole of the evidence has been given. . The Chairman then explained that Mr. Myers had handed a list of names of witnesses to. him, but he could not fix the exact, day when they would Tequire to give evidence.. ■ . Mr. Skerrett: They must be. in town. The Chairman: Some of them were summoned for Wednesday. Mr. Skerrett:. We expected, to finish to-day. . ■/ .'.■'■■ The Chairman: I did not know at the time that we were .going to sit all. day to-day. ' ■'".'■

Mr, Myers: .It appears that the subpoenas' were issued before Parliament decided to devote a whole day to the inquiry. ;■ It was then decided to take another case against Mr. Kaihau, but the witnesses were not present.. Mr. Skerrett (jocularly): I move that we .adjourn till this day six'months. •Mr. Myers: I have no doubt it would suit ypu.. . ■.'•.-■.■

THE FLAXBOURNE ESTATE.

ITS COMPULSORY PURCHASE,

INTERESTING EVIDENCE. ■ ■ What. is known' as the Haxbourne charge, was. taken next.

Mr. Myers said that all the witnesses he intended to call in this' case were here except Mr. Griffin, who was enga'ged in legal-proceedings at Napier. He suggested that he be examined on Friday. This was agreed to. ■ The charge was as follows':—

"That, in or about the year ]90i, the Government, ' having taken steps to acquire compulsorily the property known as the Maxbourne Estate-and appointed a member of the Legislature, to -wit , , Thomas Kennedy Macdonald, a member of the legislative Council, as their assessor, and knowing or believing that, by . reason of his being a member of the Legislature, the said Thomas, Kennedy Macdonald could not be paid any remuneration for so acting as assessor, sent the then partner of the said Thomas Kenned; Macdonald, one Alexander Lorimer Wilson, to make a casual.inspection of the said property, and paid him , an exceptional and wholly extravagant fee therefor, with the intent or object of indirectly remunerating the said Thomas Kennedy Macdonald or his partner or firm' by the services of .the said Thomas Kennedy Macdonald as such assessor as aforesaid." ''. ' .

Numerous Valuers,

John B. Ritchie, Land Purchase Inspector for the Government, said lie did not hold that position when the Flaxbourne property was acquired, but he had the files. The Compensation Court held a preliminary sitting on December. 14, 1903, and adjourned until December of the following year. A number of persons were appointed to go over the land, and report on it for the Crown. Mr. Nevill, of. Blenheim, was there twelve days, and received two guineas a day;.G. :L. Lane, eleven days in Court and. five on the estate, two guineas a day. Mr.- Skerrett: They are small farmers. The following further particulars of payments for inspection of the estate' were also given:— J. G. Armstrong, surveyor,- six days in Court, 2 guineas a day; H. Matson and Co., valuers, Christchurch, seven guineas- a day; T. W. Belcher, valuer, Christchurch, five guineas a'day; James Johns, Belfast, three guineas a day; Mr. Tattle, two guineas a day part of the time, and three guineas part of the time; G. King, valuer, Christchurch, five guineas a, day, and expenses; Mr. Von Eeden, of Eketahuna, eight days, seventeen days, and nineteen days, at four guineas; Mr. Kennedy,' valuer, Napier, nine days and forty-four days, at five guineas; Mr-. Hoadley, eleven days at five guineas a day; John M'Caw, Mataluaia, twenty-three days at five guineas; Andrew M'lCerrow, of Hampden, twentyone days; at four guineas; A. Chaffey, of Wairau, eight days at four guineas, and thirty-eight days at three guineas; J. Murray, of Woodbank, twenty-six and sixteen days at three ■ guineas, five days at one guinea; Hans Rosendale, of Timaru, nine days; at three guineas; A. R. Lyons, valuer, of Wellington, twentyseven days, at five guineas; Mr. Trolove, ten days ,£3O, and 17 days at £3; -Mr. Humphreys, Timaru, twenty-seven days, at three guineas; Laugley Adams, of Nelson, thirty-torn- days, at 'two guineas; Walter Norton, twelve days at two guineas, and 18 days at two guineas; Georgo King, valuer, Christchurch, seventeen days and nine days, at five guineas; J. Johns, fifteen days, at two guineas; J. Wachsmann, .£157 10s., and seven guineas a day for attending the Court, ,£2OB 195.; Mr. Foster, of Blenheim, seven days, at five guineas; S. M. Nevill, Blenheim, seven days, at three guineas; J. G. Armstrong, Blenheim, £H 2s. 2d. Travelling expenses were also allowed in every instance where the person came from a distance. . ; Mr. Massoy eaid he intended to move for a complete return of all disbursements in connection with the purchase of the estate. Witness said the fees averaged from two guineas to seven guineas per diom and travelling expenses. Several of tho valuers visited the property before tho first sitting of the Court. Many of thorn made further inspections and attended a later sitting of the Court. Somo of tho vouchers applied to the third hearing. Most of the valuors attended the Court to give evidence.

Mr. Wilson's Voucher,

Witness had a voucher for a payment to Mr. A. L. Wilson. It was dated in December, li) 03, and read:— "To special inspection and valuation of the Flaxbourno Estate and preparing a confidentia! report for counsel for the Crown in tho compensation case Clifford v. the King, in regard to tho taking of tho land for subdivision and settlement under tho Land Purchase Acts, as per agreement—»Clos." This was signed "J. G. Findlay." There was nothing to show how many days Mr. Wilson was engaged. Witness had searched the 'files without finding any report by Mr. Wilson or any instructions to Mr. Wilson, or any correspondence about his inspection or his lee. An Offer to Mr. Wilson. Witness read a letter from Mr. Bnrron, then Land Purchase Inspector, to Mr. Wilson, asking him to act as assessor at the Court. This was dated July 20, 1303. The writer suggested that Mr. Wilson should first visit the estate.' Mr. Wilson replied, agreeing to act at ten guineas a day, and, out-of-pocket expenses. He. presumed that Mr. Wilson was instructed personally by-Dr. Findlay. > To Mr. Skerrett: Dr. Findlay w.as counsel for the Crown on the first two occasions, and subsequently W. A. (now Judge) Sim and Mr. D. M. Findlay. He did not think ten guineas a day was too much for an assessor in such a big case. Mr; Cross received ten guineas a day-and expenses for thirty days. He attended eight (lay at the Court as assessor, and the other days were spent inspecting .the estate, advising the: Government about the subdivision, and conferring with the Premier and Dr. Findlay. Mr. Cross was a well-known Hawke's Bay sheep farmer. The Flaxbourne case was one of tho biggest and hardest contested the Government had been engaged in. Mr. Cross received altogether -J6357. Mr. Griffin received .£212 14s. (87 days at two guineas, and expenses), and subsequent payments of .£65 165., £11 18s. 4d., and .£34 Bs. 10d. Mr. Griffin was a salaried Government officer, and received these jxiyments in addition to his .salary.' Witness, had found no voucher for any payment to Mr. T. ,K. Macdonald. There was a claim by him for hotel. and travelling expenses, but it did not appear to have been paid. To Sir Joseph Ward: The'award of the Court was .£IBI,BOO, and . the amount claimed bySir Geo. Clifford was ,£410,000, a difference of .£229,200. The late Mr. Seddon was the responsible Minister, and the authority for the payment to Mr. Wilson was signed by him., The payment was approved by Mr. Seddon on May 22, 1904. ■ ■' Did Mr. Macdonald Ask for Money? Did you know that Mr. Kennedy Macdonald, after tho death of Mr. Seddou and since my assumption of the ijosition of head of the Government, 1 m-ado continual representations to me for a paymont os about ,£6OO for services, which he has alleged, that he rendered in connection with the Flaxbourne Estate, and that his apElication uas refused?—"l have heard of that, but I have no knowledge of it." Witness would not-say, that was enough to cover the fees of an assessor and a valuator. If a payment was'made to Mr. Macdonald,' there should be a voucher for it, but he could find no such voucher. There were numerous valuers acting on the other side. . Mr. Skerrett pointed out as a matter of fairness to the owners of the .estate that the. .£410,000 claimed by the owners included the value of the. area reserved by the owners; . . ' To Mr'. Allen: The ,£357 paid to Mr. Cross included thirty days nt ten guineas, hotel and other expenses. He could not say whether the ten. guineas perl.day included travelling, expenses. ', ''•■ To Mr. A. M.. Myers: The owner, he thought, retained 13,000 acres. . '

A, Question Objected To,

Mr. Reed asked if witness could give a list of members of Parliament who communicated with the Government as land agents in regard to'.the purchase of estates by tho Government. . ' Mr. Fraser. contended that the question was irrelevant. '

This view was upheld by the chairman, who said that the 'answer .to tho question would introduce the names of other, land agents who were not concerned with this particular sale. , Mr. Massey said that if the question were allowed he would have to ask .'for a list, of firms including members of Parliament who did any work for the State.

' Mr. E«ed continued to argue in. support of his question. Mr. Chairman ruled that the answer would not prove or disprove tho charge. To Mr. Buchanan': Mr. Cross was well qualified to do the work which lie vcas called npon to perform. ' ' . iDo you know anything of Mr. Wilson's qualifications?—."l know a little." Supposing you had money to invest and wished to get the best advice possible as to values of land similar to Flaxboume, how would -you place the. value of the opinions of Air. Cross and those of Mr. Wilson?—"l dare say Mr. Cross has been more actively engaged in. the. working of land than Mr. Wilson, but Mt. Wilson in the south had a good deal of experience in-regard to land values."

Did his experience not He in the direction, of town and suburban land?—"l can't say." , . ■ ' .

A. Confidential Report

To Mr. M. Myers: Mr. Wilson was noi present.at either of the trials. He simply .went there to make a confidential report. That report he had not got. He did not know that Mr. Griffin, who then hold an important position in the Valuation Department, was ' expressly appointed to select tho witnesses. The Court assessed the fee given to Mr. Cross.

Alexander Barren, formerly chairman of the Land Purchase -Board, said. that he held that position when Flaxbourne was acquired. The first sitting of the Assessment • Court was held on , December 1-i, 1003, for the purpose of classifying tho land. The Court then adjourned till December, 1904;-for the hearing of tho case. No award was come to at this hearing. The Judge on those two occasions Has Mr. Justice Cooper, and tho assessor for the Crown was Mr. Macdonald. Tho second .hearing was before the Chief Justice and tivo fresh assessors, Mr. Cross being the assessor for the Crown. Mr. Wilson was asked whether he would act as assessor for the Crown in July,'l9o3, and Mi , . Macdonald was appointed to tho position in the succeeding month. Mr. jUacdonald was present at Blenheim when the Court Erst sat. Dr. Findlay instructed Mr. Wilson 'to make a report on the property. He (witness) was not aware that Mr. Wilson was being sent to report. He never saw the report submitted by. Mr. Wilson. : The first he learned of it was Mr. Wilson's voucher for .£165. He may have known indirectly, tha't Mr. Wilson had been appointed to report The voucher had to be passed by him, and he passed it on March 23, 190t. It was marked "Land Purchase Board approves." How Mr. Wilson Was Engaged. How did you approve it? —"I believe that I inquired from Messrs. Findlay, Dalziell and Co. if he had. reported, and if the voucher was in order." Did j-ou make any further inquiries?— "No, because Dr. Findlay had sole charge of ■ the Elaxbourno. case. Dr. Findlay had a free hand to get what witnesses he chose." ■ . 'Replying to further questions, the witness said that lie was not able to say whether Mr. Wilson was a witness or whether it was ever intended that ho should be one. He may have asked to sec Mr. Wilson's report, but he never saw it. He did not make any inquiry as to how , long Mr. Wilson was ont of Wellington in connection with the report. Did you know that none of tlwse who made reports received more, than seven guineas per day, but some received only two guineas to five guineas per day?— "Sonio were paid a special fee, besides a fee for attendance." Do you mean a lump sum?—" Yes." Who were they?—" One was Mr. Wachsmann, then of Christchurch, who made a similar report."

How do you know it was a siniilar report; you didn't see Mr. Wilson's?— "No."

How long would it take a valuer to inspect the property, in fine weather?—"lf one was very quick, he conld do it in a week; otherwise, a fortnight, or, perhaps, more." Were tho services of -Mr. Griffin utilised for the purpose of preparing cases on behalf of tho Government?—" Only one or two." i

Did ho have anything to do with tho management of tho Flaxbourne case?—"l don't know what he did, except from the voucher."

"Not a Unique Case."

Mr. Wilson made Ins report for the Government just about Iho tirao that Mr. Macdonald (his partner) was acting as assessor for the Crown?—"l suppose so. I don't know that he was a partner at the time. I suppose he was." Mr. Macdonald was a member of tho Legislative Council at tho time?—" Yes." And ought not to have been directly or indirectly paid for his services ?—"Ho was not paid directly or indirectly." As far as you know, you mean?—"As far as I know." For instance, you don't know tho circumstances in connection with Mr. Wilson's report?—" His report was not a unique one. Others made a similar report." How can you say that, when you have not seen them?—" They charged for them in the same way. Is there anything on the.file to show who recommended that Mr. Wilson should be appointed as a valuer?—"l dare say the suggestion came from myself or from Mr. Seddon." Witness later explained that he was roferring to the offer to Mr. AVilsou to act as an assessor. Bat there is nothing on the file?—"A great deal took place which is not on the file. There were oral communications between myself and Dr. Findlay, and between Dr. 'Findlay and Mr. Seddon. His appointment to report on tho property may have been suggested by myself, Mr. Seddon, or Dr. Findlay." Do you know if it is a fact that since Mr. Seddon's death Mr. Macdonald has applied for ,£6OO in connection with Flaxbonrne? —"I am not aware of it."

But it may be so?—" Mr. Ifacdonald has frequently complained that ho had nothing for his services." Witness also said that Mr. Hacdonald knew from witness that he would not be paid for liis services, but he had frequentlj* complained of not being paid. To Mt. Skerrett:- Mr. Macdonald attended three sittings of tho Court at his own cost, and received ■ only .£l2 for expenses.

Was It a Victory? Didn't you secure a great victory?— "No., I thought they got about ,£40,000 too much." (Laughter.) To Sir Joseph Ward: Tho portion of the estate offered to the Government was 57,000 acres, and 11,700 acres was reserved by the owners.' The price asked for the balance was .£350,000, and -the price paid was about .£183,000. He was sure Mr. Seddon would not have been a party to any arrangement for paying Mr. Macdouald under cover of a. payment to Mr. Wilson. Landowners generally asked a great deal more than they expected to get. He knew of no payment to Mr. Macdonald for Ws services on the' Compensation Court beyond the .£l2 mention-

ed. To the Hon. J. A. Millar; Mr. Malcolm got .£157 10s. for n special report, and .£sl 9s. for attending the Court. Comparing this with theiClGs. paid to Mr.; Wilson, who was equally wr.ll qualified, the latter payment was not excessive. ■ . .' To Mr. Massey: Mr. Waehainann's report was probably of the same character as Mr. Wilson's. Dr. Findlay or Messrs. Findlay, Dalziell, and Co. had them both. Witness had not seen.either report. Mr. Wilson liad had a good deal of experience in pastoral country. Each valuer sent liis report to Dr. Findlay (counsel for the Crown), who called as witnesses those whom he selected as most likely to help his case. Nai Nai Mentioned. . The witness'having stated, in reply to Sir Joseph Ward, that the Government could not acquire estates (not compulsorily) without the recommendation of the Land Purchase Board, and could not pay a higher price than the board recommMr.eMassey asked: Did the land Pur : chase- Board recommend the. Nai Nai •purchase?—" Yes." What was the Government valuation?— ".£BO per acre." And the price paid ?—".£150." On What Terms?. How was Mr. Macdonald's appointment made?—" Mr. Seddon asked me to see him, and ho agreed to act, although Mr. Wilson had been asked.before." On what terms?—"He knew he could not bo paid, but he agreed, to'act." Mr. Allen: Very generous of him. Mr. Buchanan: How does it come about that Mr. Macdonald has since asked for payment?-"I don't know. I think he expects to bo paid by a direct vote. To Mr. Myers: Mr. Wachsmann was called as a witness. Mr. Wilson.was not called. - Possibly his report did not suit Dr. Findlay'. - ."',.. To Sir Joseph Ward: Tho price which the owner asked for the Nai Nni land was .£2OO.

Mr. Wilson's Evidence, Alexander Lorimer Wilson, land agent, Wellington, said that he was formerly a partner of the Hqn.T. K. Macdonald. In December, 1903, he visited the Flaxbourne Estate. He kept no diary. About the middle of 1903 the Government asked him if he could act as assessor for the Government in . the case Clifford v. the Crown. Eventually it was decided by the Government and Mr. Macdonald that Mr. Macdonald should act as assessor. Either at the end of November or early in December he was requested to report on Flaxbourne. The instructions came from Messrs. Findlay, Dalziell and -Co., but he-did not think that they were in writing. Mr. Macdonald knew he wns going to report on the property. His fee was £160. Ho went over on a Thursday or a Friday, and he got back on the following Monday week. The date of his arrival at Flaxbourne TCOuld be. a Friday or a Saturday. If it were proved that it was a Sunday he would deny' the assertion. Mr. Griffin was in charge of the estato at the time. *

His Inspection of the Property. There must have been fifteen or twenty people/valuing or inspecting the property. He went out over the. property on every day except one. The people for some rea-. son looked upon him , as a kind of spy, and at first were none too friendly. The reason, he did not go out one day was that he could not get a horse. On that day he'inspected the buildings and one of the blocks on foot. He left-Flaxbourne again on the Saturday, week. He would be there a whole week, and he inspected it as well as he could while ho was there. He went over most of the property. He made a confidential report, and gave it to' Dr. Findlay. It was a, long, report, and : ehowed the acreage of eveTy block, classifying it into first, second; and third-class, land, and carrying out and totalling the estimated prices. After discussing, the point with Sit.'Macdonald he decided,not to givo evidence, as-his partner was on.the bench. Hβ cashed his cheque for £165, but did not. remember what he did' with the money. He did not put in into the bank. There was an arrangement by deed with his partner that all Government moneys should come to witness.

To Mr. Skerrett: He had had much experience in Southland in valuing tussock properties like Flaxbourne, and had owned such properties. He had been valuing for 30 years, and. llau (jut uu cases loi.solicitors in Compensation Courts, and had sat as an assessor in some cases. He found some witnesses for. the .Crown in the Flaxbourne case. Ho thought his fee of .£lO5 was a matter of agreement between Messrs. Findlay, Dalziell and Co. and himself. Ho could find no trace of it in Macdonald, Wilson and Co.'s books. He. studied the maps of Flaxbourne before he went there.. To Sir Joseph Ward: There was no arrangement betweon himself and any Minister as to a fee to be taken by witness and divided with Mr. Macdonald. He did not discuss his engagement with any Minister.

MR. KAIHAU AGAIN.

ANOTHER CHARGE. The committee at 11.30 p.m. began to hear evidence on a charge that Henare Kaihau obtained in 1905 a payment from Iloromona Watarauhi in respect of a petition which was to have been, but was not in fact, presented to Parliament. Hainana Nufama, of Onehunga, said ho was present at Ngaruawahia on a day in February or March, 1905, when Mr. Kaihau obtained JBIS from Iloromona Watarauhi in connection with a petition about Waipa, Lot GG. He saw the money handed to Mr. Kaihau, and heard conversation showing what it was for. Tho petition was never signed. The committee at 11.50 adjourned until 11 a.m. to-day.