THE MOKAU INQUIRY.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1221, 1 September 1911, Page 2

THE MOKAU INQUIRY.

A REMARK RESENTED. PRESIDENT OF MAORI LAND BOARD GIVES EVIDENCE. SOME INTERESTING QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS. THE ORDER-IN-COUNCIL <S OTHER MATTERS-' Tho Native Affairs Committee continued tho Mokau inquiry yesterday. Members present were: Mr. W. T. Jennings (chairman), Sir Jas. Carroll, the Hon. A. T. Ngata, Dr. To R-angihiroa, and Messrs. F. Maiuler, H. J. H. Greenslade, B. Dive, W. 11. .Herries, 'I'. E. Y. Soddon, and T. Parata. Messrs. W. F. Massey, F. G. Dalziell, and J. Jones were present. Before the proceedings commenced, Mr. Greenslade asked Mr. Massey whether he had been correctly reported, in the Auckland "Herald" on August 29, as saying that the Mokau inquiry was going on slowly but satisfactorily, and that "as for tho report, it will bo just such a report a 9 might bo expected from a com-; lnitteo consisting of nine Government supporters and threo Oppositionists."

Mr. Massey stated that the report referred to was substantially correct. Mr. Greenslade said lie regretted very much that the statement had appeared. Members of the co-mmitt.ee had no-t shown tho least bias or given any indication as to what their finding was likely to be. The suggestion wns that because there were threo Oppositionists and nine Government members on tho committee the report would ba favourable so far as the Government was concerned This was a very poor compliment to Messrs. Herries, Dive, and Mandcr. Personally, he felt sure these gentlemen would voto as fairly as he was confident the other members would. Ho resented the imputation very strongly. It wns .absolutely unfair. Iho chairman (Mi 1 . W. T. Jennings) remarked that tho slow progress was duo to Messrs. Massey and Dive having to go away. No further reference was made to the matter. Mr. Bowler's Statement. Walter Harry Eowkr, president of the Waikato-Maniapoto Maori Land Board, was called as a witness. He said lie had no statement to make, und was examined b>" Mr. Massey. Answering questions, he said ho had been for sixteen months president of his board. Its remaining members were Mr. Seymour and a Native named Mare Teretui. He convened the meeting of assembled owners of the Mokau Block upon an application being made by Findlay and Dalziell, on behalf of Lewis. The application was received on December 24, 1910, and was forwarded by him to the Under-Secretary of the Department. The meeting was called in accordance, with instructions in writing received from tho Minister. The Natives were notified by circular to attend, so far as the board could find them. He could not say how many circulars were sent out. Mr. Massey: Do you know that there aro 200 Native owners of these blocks? Witness; No; 10S. Mr. Massey: Do you know that we have had. information from tho Native Minister that there are 200 owners of these blocks? Sir Jas. Carroll said iie had not stated positively. Witness repeated that tho owners numbered 108. Tho number present at the first meeting was between 30 and 40. Mr. Ngata: The. babies, for instance, would not be .■-present,' • Mr. Massey; They might be represented. - Mr. Massey;,,Do. yon think a majority of a meeting of 30 or 40 ! Natives should bo allowed to dispose of the freehold interest of over 100? Witness: It is the Intention of the Act, is it not? He had never' yet known a case whero the board had notified every dissentient owner. There were a number of.'dissentient owners in this case, and that was why lie thought it advisable that the first meeting should be adjourned. A. mis-statement had been made in evidence in regard to the voting. In the case of IF, the voting wns 24 and a ■fraction for (he resolution, and 20 and a fraction against. In the case of IG, there was no vote, the Natives being unn.nimmisly against tho sale. In the case of 111, 7 8-15 votes were recorded for tho sale- and 11 against. In the case of IJ, tho voting was 5 for and 3 17-25 against. The figures referred to shares, and not to tho number of voters. In the case of two blocks there was a majority for sale.

By Diroction of the Minister. Mr. Massey: By what. authority did you convene the meeting? Witness: There was statutory authority. After some further questions, witness stated that the meeting was callcd bj- direction of the Minister. Mr. Massey said that was exactly what lie wanted to get at. "If it had not been for iho direction of the Native Minister," he asked.- "would yen havo callcd the meeting?" Witness remarked t.hat there was no alternative. They had'taken the direction of the Minister., and had not analysed, the- question as to whether the alienation might lawfully be made, iu the absence of that directions Mr, Massey: It must have been your duty to convene the meeting under ono of tlie.so heads. Either you took your instructions from the Native Minister, or were of opinion at that time that tho alienation might lawfully be raadc?^ "Witness: 1 had not formed an opinion ■then. .' Witness added that Mr. Dalzicll paid tho fee required on behalf of Mr- Hermann Lewis. Mr. Massey: You know, of course, that it would be difficult to stop a lease and allow the alienation to take place without an Order-in-Council ? Witness staled that sine* ho had join-, ea his hoard he knev; of other cases in which tho alienation of laud had been authorised by an Ordor-in-Council. He knew of one under the present Act. A one-acre section was acquired by tho Loan and Mercantile at.Otaki. They could not hold the area, and an Order-in-Council was issued permitting it. Mr. Massey: Did you know that if the assembled owners consented to the salo an Ordor-in-Council. would be issued authorising the alienation? Witness: No. Mr. Massey: You have stated that t.ho Natives would not at the first meeting agree to the sale. Witness: No. I did not say that. I havo already faid that a majority in the case of two Kecks were in favour of the sale. These two blocks aggregated 30,000 acres. To Sir James Carroll: Block F contained 2G.4®0 acres; Block G. 2009 acres; Block TT, 19.570 acres; Block J. 12G5 ncrcs. At the first ireeting the Natives were in favhn-r of selling 30.740 acres. To Mr. Massey: Voting power was based on area. In tho case of one block a number of owners' interests .were not located, consequently the question of area could not enter. In this case interests expressed in shares were taken as a basis. Mr. Massey: Tf a majority were iu favour at tho first meeting, why was not the alienation allowed to toko place? Witness: The main reason' was that tho board would not have been justified in selling the laixl on a baro majority. Ho knew of no onso where the board had sold under these circumstances. Witness continual that t!j» first meofin? (on January GO was adjourned. The date of the second meeting was left to him to arrange. It. was held on March 10. There wero thirty or fortv Natives at the second meeting. Mr. Dalzicll was present at the second meeting, and no other legal gentleman so far as lie could remember. Legal Advice. Mr. Massey: Jlad the Natives tho benefit of legal advice at these meetings? Witness: At the first meeting Mr. Skerrett was there representing tho Natives. 'Mr. Massey. By whom was ho paid? Witness: 1 don't know. . Mr. Massey :< Do you _ know that Mr. Tuiti Macdonald said in evidence that at tho first meeting 77 per cent, of tho Natives were against the sale, and that Mr. Skerrett represented a minority. Had

you any statement at either meeting from tho Native owners as to their being represented by counsel. Witness: No, except that at tho first meeting a number of them said Mr. Skerrett was their legal advisor. Mr. Massey: Do yon aiot think it should have been your duty to sco that tbo Natives were represented by counsel? , Witness stated that the meetings wero not meetings of tho board, but deliberative meetings of tho owners, at which he was duly appointed chairman' by the owners present. Mr. Massey: You raised no objection to Mr. Lewis, who was anxious to purchase these blocks, being represented by counsel? "Witness: No. Mr. Massey: No counsel was appointed to represent tho Natives at the second meeting? Witness: No. At the second meeting tho Natives who wero present were unanimously anxious for au adournment. It was arrauged to adjourn to March 22. Macdonald, Eketone, and their parties unanimously requested that this should ho done. Mr. Massey: Did you notify the Nativo owners of the third meeting? it lies It was not my duty to notify them. We had a largo number of owners present. No circulars wero sent out for the third meeting. Mr. Mcssey: Don't you think that a particularly loose way of doing things. Witness: Could you havo done any better ? Mr. Massey: I am not under examination, but if I wero president of a Maori land board I would see that notice was sent to each owner in connection with important business liko this.

Witness, resuming, stated tha.t at the third meeting ho was represented by Judge Holland. He (witness) had satisfied himself, before this alienation was permitted, that tho Natives had sufficient land left to maintain them. Mr, Massey next asked if witness knew anything about a sum of .£2500 which was to bo collected from the Native owners. Story of Ten Per Cont. _ Witness stated that he attended at To Kuiti on Juno 1 to pay out tho Mokau monies. A large number of tho Native owners were present, but none of then, came around. Next day, as he was leaving by the train, a number of the Natives oame overlie had heard remarks that they were not quite a happy family in regard to legal expenses, agents' fees, and so forth. The Natives came over to the train as he was leaving, and said that everything had been fixed up and they were prepared to take tho money. They numbered between 10 and 50. He went back to tho hall, and the Natives told him they had arrived at an agreement wh'ereby each Native was to pay 10 per cont. of his proportion of the purchase money into, the board. They were unanimous in wishing to do t this. Ho raised sorno objection, and pointed out that he was not a debt-collecting agency, but eventually dccided, as they wished it, to hand each Native two chcques and. take bis receipt in full. Without exception they handed the smaller cheque back to him to collect. Mr. Massey: You collected the ten per cent? Witness: I did not collect it. They handed it back to me. I got them to sign an agreement as to tho decision arrived at. To state that the board mado tho deduction was quite incorrect. Ho simply acted as banker. He gave the Natives the board's own receipt, and opened a separate ledger account' for the amount handed back. Some of tho Natives had not paid. Tho purchase money had been paid by Hermann Lewis at some time in May. The ,£2500 worth of shares wer.o not taken into account iu calculating tho ten per cent. About ,£ISOO of'the , ten per cent, had been paid by tho Natives. Ho held all of this except a sum of about J2270. Payments were to be made as directed by a sub-committee consisting of.Eketone and Macdonald. Witness liad paid £100 to Dayman, an interpreter, and .£l7O to Macdonald. Ho had not been notified by the sub-committee as to what was to bo done with the balance. Mr. Massey: Have any other claims boon made? Witness:- Ono or ; twoverbal 'applications, but I have not'entertained them. Ono claim had been made by another of t'llo Native agents interested. , Mr. Massey: What is his name? . ; Witness: Will this go in the press? Mr. Massey: This is a public inquiry. Witness stated that Andrew Eketone had asked him to pay him something on account. Eketono nail not stated any definite sum, and he had no reoollection of his having sent in an account. Mr. Massey: Was Mr. Andrew Eketone the only one? • Witness:' I remember no other. Quito sure?— Yes. What about Mr. Hardy?— Mr. Hardy never asked me for any money. Is it tho intention of the Native owners to pay Mr. Hardy?—l don't know their intentions. I know Mr. Hardy has a claim upon this fund. How do you know ?—Bocauso ho told mo.; ' Did he mention on amount?— No. Statement from Native Agents. Witness said he had a statement from the Nativo agents which he proposed to hand in. Mr. -Massey said tho statement was rather lon),' to go through, but seemed to contain evidence that would be of value to tho committee. He noted (from tho statement) that Mr. llardy, up to April, 19)1, had made a claim for ,£373. Witness: He never made a claim to me. I simply say Mr. Hardy gavo mo that statement. Mr. Massey continued that Mr. MacdonnfL lln -^ ng r «<* iv «d •£!'<! still claimed •LISIG. He would only refer to tho first page, which contained the minutes of a meeting of Natives to consider the question of costs. Mr. Tuiti Macdonald was chairman, and it was agreed that all costs should bo deducted from tho .£25,000 Mr. Massey remarked that each member of the committee, acting for tho Natives, had a claim against tho .£2500 Placed in the hands of the president of tho Moon Land Board. .£800! NSata: Somethi . n S liko Mr. Boll's Mr. Massey: "Mr. Bell has no claim against the ,£2500. His claim, ,£IOO, was satisfied. Ho continued that out of seven members of the Native Committee a majority cither olaimed or had been paid moneys from the ten per cent, which tiie witness held as trustee. Witness: I should say no. I only know of three. Mr. Massey insisted that there was a majority. . Mr. Massey: Do you remember a letter lrom Mr. .fonos, asking to bo uotified in caso of any attempted alienation of this block r Witness: I only bad one letter from him. I remember receiving it. It was dated March 11. Ho received it on March 22, and replied o,:i March 25. Askod to account for the fact that tho letter was dated March 11, and received Oil March 22, witness said 110 thought 110 was in Auckland for ten days before llio letter came. Tie could not'bo quite certain. He could not explain the fact of the delay. The letter from Mr. Jones was put in. In it he claimed the right as au interested party, to be present when any proposal to alienate the Mokau lands was wing considered. Mr. Massey: Mr. Jones evidently asked von. as an interested-party, to notify him of any attempted alienation. Did you comply? Witness stated that, he replied on March 25, after the alienation took place. In explanation lie might say that the board had inquired and ascertained that Mr. Jones's position would not be altered one way or the other. He supposed tho reason that be did not reply sooner was that the board was sitting for three days, and ho was 100 busy. The Order-in-Council. Mr. Massey: Are you aware that the Order did not appear in tho Gazette for several days after the confirmation took place? How did you become 'awaro that tho Order had been issued? Witness: I was informed'' by Mr. T)a.lziell. and it was verified by the head office. At Mr. Massey's request, witness produced a telegram from the head office, dated March 28. ' Mr. Massey: That telegram was received 011 March" 28, and tbo confirmation was agreed to by the board 011 March 25, or was it March 24? It appears that you, as president of the board, itself, confirmed the alienation of' the land withoutknowing officially that the Ordor-in-Coun-cil had been issued ? Witness: Wo knew that the matter had been before the Executive. Mr. Massey: How did you know? Witness: From Mr. DalzielL

Mr. Massey: Is that the way in which you conduct yiair business as president of tho Maori L;ind Board?

Witness: Of course wo tako tho word of a reputable solicitor. llr. Massey said it would be bis duly to comment in .Parliament 011 what had taken place. Further' questional by Mr. Massey, tho witness stated that jf ho had not been instructed by'tho Minister to convene'the first meeting, tho board would h.ivo considered tho matter. Ho could not say what tho Iward would have dono in that cast-. To Sir James Carroll witness staled that tho minutes of tho Nativo meeting, on April 21, in regard to costs, wore Riven him by Mr. Hardy, who was secretary of tho Native Committee. Ho thought Mr. Hardy's main object was to assist him in working out tho shares of tho Natives. These minutes did not form part of his evidence. Ho had not. even read them. Coercion Denied. Sir Jnmcs Carroll: A tatement has been mado that tho board' .. /creed the owners until they came round to the proposal. Is that correct?— Quite iucorrect. Witness went 011 to stato that ho attended tho meeting of assembled ownera in compliance with Sub-section G of Section 42 of tho-Native Land Act. Tho Natives appointed him chairman in exercise of their nbsolr.te right to appoint whom they pleased. As representative of tho beard, he submitted tho terms to tho assembled owners. The board was not present at any meeting of owners. . Some of the owners objected to tho deduction of ten per cent, to cover , costs. ,£7O odd was d;eductcd for land tax. Mr.'Massey-stated that, under a covonaut in tho lease, the laud tax should have been paid by Hermann Lewis a3 lessee. . Mr. Ngata contended that tho customary course had been followed. It was convenient to collect tho tax from tho lessee, but tho liability was on the Native owners. To Mr. Herries witness stated that a meeting of the boaTd was hold at To Kuiti 011 January G at 11.30 to consider' tho application. It adjourned, and tho first meeting of assembled owners waa hold at two o'clock on tho afternoon. Tho board met again in tho ovening, and dccided to recommend the application. Tho minutes of tho meeting of owneVS included a statement by Mr. Skerrett, iu which he stated, inter alia, "I am of opinion tho best thin.? in the interests of tho Natives is for tho land to be sold at a fair price. I Vefram from expressing au opinion as to what is a fair price, but, if tho Natives aro satisfied that present offer is a fair one, I advise them to sell, and so save theni- . selves expensive litigation. Witness continued that Mr. Bell had notified him that ho was representing a section of the owners. It was mainly owing to Mr. Bell that tho second meeting was fixed , for March 10. Mr. Massey: Do you know hp was notified that it was not necessary for him to appear. Witness:'l was informed that ho wanted .esoo. Mr. Massey: Ton wero misinformed. That is not evidence. On further examination, witness 6aid ho was inclined to discredit tho statement -that Tuili Macdonald represented 77 per cent, of the owners. Tho fact that t.hc third meeting was arranged at great inconvenience to himself seemed to show that the board was not interested in pushing the thing through. The Agreement, To Mr. Ngata: The ten per cent, deduo. tion was not an order of fho board. He did not think tho board knew anything about it. It was .an agreement by tho Natives when he was there to make tho' agreement-. The agreement was signod mainly to make his own position clear. As a matter of fact ho drew it. The agreement, bearing 58 signatures, was put in. It is.as follows:—... "We, tho undersigned- owners in tlie Mokau-Mohakahino, numbers IF, IG, IH, and 1J Blocks, do jointly and severally agree to ten per centum of our several proportions of tho purchaso i money accruing, therefrom being retained by tho president, of: the Waikato-Manifcpoto District Maori Land Board, such peroentago to be -deducted towards tho liquidation of the .legal and agents'-costs due in-00117 nection with tho said block. And wo do further, agree that such sums may be paid out'bv liim, as directed by Messrs. P. Pepene Eketone and Tuiti Macdonald, and without further reference to, us." None of the Natives who \vere present when the agreement was drawn, witness stated, had refused-to sign, but some of tiho other owners had objected 'and had been paid in full. In his experience of Native land transactions, claims of this kind were not uncommon. The committee adjourned at this stage, and will sit again at 11 a.m. to-day.