THE MOKAU INQUIRY.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1234, 16 September 1911, Page 3

THE MOKAU INQUIRY.

NEARINQ THE END.

SOME INTERESTING INFORMATION.

MR. DALZIELL& MR. LEWIS GIVE EVIDENCE.

The Native Affairs Committee continued the Mokau Inquiry Yesterday*. Members present were Mr. AY. T. Jennings (chairman), Sir Jus. Carroll, the Hon. A. T. Ngatn, Dr. Te Rangihiroa, and Messrs. 11. J. Gieeiislade, B. Dive, AV. H. Hcrries, T. E. Y. Seddon, AV. D. S. Macdonald, and T. Parata. Messrs. AV. F. Mnsscy and J. Jones were present.

The examination of Mr. F. G. Dalzicll was continued. Questioned by Mr. Herries, ho .stated that Mr. Lewis's interest in. the Mokau lands was at ono tinio offered to the Government for .£28,000. It was not a definite offer, but it was suggested to the Government that Lewis might be willing to sell for the sum mentioned. At that time he was under pressure, and might have sold at .1 price that he did not consider adequate. At this period the Government could have bought from the Natives for .£22,500, so that it could have acquired for .£50,000 what the company had bought for .£85,000, Mr. Lewis still retaining 7000 acres. AVitncss could not explain why Mr. Mason Chambers, • having an agreement: to purchsso tli? interest of Mr. Lewis for should afterwards agrco to buy it for iMG.OOO. •

Mr. Hcrries: Was Mr. Chambers equally a speculator v.itli Mr. Lewis? Witness: Mr. Chambers usually, speculates in hind that ho is prepared to farm if necessary. I understand that he has bet-ii very successful in tho purchase and sale of properties. The chairman suggested that Mr. Chambers mifrlifc bo called, but Mr. Hemes replied ,tnat he did not require his presence. . Mr. Herrios: Your client bought for ■£39,000 what lie afterwards sold for .£71,000 and .£4OOO worth of shares, though he kept 7000 acres? Witness: l'es. Tho 7000 acres were leased for 30 years, and the rent was a very small sum. Mr. Herrics: Is Mr. Bowler trustee for Herrnian Lawis or for the company? Witness: For Herrman Lewis for the 7000 acres, awl for the company in respect of the balance. He was also trustee to see that the land was subdivided. He could not alienate the land except in accordance witli the deed of trust, which permitted tho Maori Land Board to sell. Questions by Mr. Herries, Mr. Herries: Ho is not trustee as chairman of the Maori Land Board, but in his private capacity ? Witness: That is because tho statute would not permit him to accept tho trust as chairman of the board. ' ' Supposing Mr. Bowler were a dishonest person, could h<. not sell tho land?— Mo. Why, could he not givo a transfer?— Because there is a. caveat. It was registered a month later than the transfer. It was all part of the same transaction. Sup)»se Mr. Bowler signed a .transfer to a single person, would not that stand? —The transfer would bo taken with notice of tho fact of this condition, which enables the Maori Land Board, at any time after three years, to dispose of the land. What clause in the Act enables tho Maori Land Board to deal with European land?— There is some doubt as to whether the Maori Land Board could do that —I think it could—but Mr. Bowler,; -as trustee for tho time beinp;, could do it. Then everything depends "on the'honesty of Mr. Bowler?—No, he could bo removed at any time by the Supreme Court. The Public Trustee ivould havo been in the sam'o position. It would not matter whether a trustee was an oflicial or a private individual if he. attempted to commit a. fraud. • Mr. Bowlor mortgaged tho laud tq M'Nab and others. What was the object of that?—M'Nab and the others, I understand, guaranteed the company's account. •■ :■ . ■ . ' " What was the amount of the mortgage? —I don't know. It was part of the company's business, I think Mr. M'Nab told you. Mr. Herries: Mr. M'Nab thought it was .£75,000, but lie seemed to think there were two mortgages. Mr. Bowler also gave another mortgage to Mason Chambers. What was the object ■of that?— An advance to Mr. Lewis. Witness continued that the object of lodging the caveat was to prevent any dealings inconsistent with the agreement. There was no speeinl reason for registering it later than the other deeds.

Mr. Herries: Mr. Bowler said that no instructions were given by tho Maori Land Board to lodge a caveat?—lt would probably bo done on my suggestion. You don't usually act for the Maori Land Board?—No, and I did not on this occasion.. Neither did 1 usually act for tho company. Itwas merely as we had acted for all the other people, and registered their documents. Witness continued that this land could not now be disposed of save in areas allowed under the Native Land Act. The Order-in-Council only covered an alienation under these- conditions. There tfas a provision that land, having onco been Native land, remained subject to the alienation provisions of tho Native Land Act. Mr. Bowler (lid not get an extra remuneration?— Yes, I understand an arrangement has since been made by which he sots a small salary while he is trustee. Mr. Herrios: Is that paid bv the company or Herrman Lewis?—lt is paid by the company. I think it came about in this way: There was some objection raised, by the Department, to his actinß at all in the matter, and I think they were not sure whether he could legally do it. Witness went with Mr. Bowler at his request to confer with the Solicitor-Gene-ral. His conclusion'was that Mr. Bowler could fill.tho position, but that he ought to be paid for it. This was two or three months after the alienation. The chairman: Do you know of any other case in which a Government .servant is placed in sucli a position as that of receiving payment from private people ? Witness: Oh, yes. There must bo many, with the. consent of tho Depart, inent, of course. Mr. Herries: Don't yon think it is putting him in a rather peculiar position?— No. I think it is fair to the Crown, as he is doing this extra work. It is beneficial to the community, as ho is carrying out- this subdivision. Mr. Hcrries: Have you any idea what the sum isf—Yes; X.j a month. Mr. Herries: If the company docs not. cut up, how can Mr. Bowler reconve.v to the board?—lf the land is , not cul up, tho board can advertise the land for sale under Part 14 of the Act. The trustee can cut it up without having, anything to do with the board?— Ye?. You can't get rid of tho land except in these areas. Is thfre any statutory authority by which tho board can cut up and sell if tho company does not?— There is a. statutory power enabling the board to cut up land vested in it. Is there any power to vest this land in tho board ?—That is doubtful; that is why tho condition was imposed on the trustee. Mr. Skerrett and tho Solicitor-General agreed that this woul'd bo effective. Witness added that ho did not think any of the difficulties -suggested by Mr. Herries could arise. The Assurance Fund, Mr. Massey: Are you quite sure that this block of land conies within the definition of Native laud under the Act of 1909?— I think there is no doubt about that. Do you flunk, speaking as a member of the legal profession, that there was any ground for a. claim in the Assurance Fund?-Yes, I feel satisfied that there probably was, though I had no occasion to go into the question closely. 1 merely concluded that it was a claim that ought to bo avoided if possible. Suppose I leased certain lands to you and you registered the leases in tho ordinary way under the Land Transfer Act, do you think that I would havo a claim on the Land Transfer Assurance Fund if I hod willingly and freely signed the leases?— No. unless I wits under age. A free agent could not claim under the Land Transfer Act r—But the Maoris were not frot> ngont'?. They had no power to sign these leases. • Tlu» claim was supposed to be for .£80,000:-—Mr. Skerrett had given formal notice of a claim, but .SSO.OOO was not necessarily, iiio amount <

If the leasehold is worth .£BO,OOO what whs tlu> freehold of the block worth?— About .£llO,OllO. Then you fhink flio leasehold intorcsl would be three times as valuably as the freehold interest' iit Mich ft case?— More tlnm thri-ii times, 1 think. You probably know more about the transaction than any other man?—l had (<> do with wore pha.ses of it than any other man, except Jlr. Jones, of course. ilr. Masse,v, rending from the statement lie had made at the opening of the inquiry, asked witness whether ho agreed that "the Order-in-Council was issued in order to avoid (he provisions with regard to limitation in the Xativo Land Act, ioim.;* Witness dissented. The alienation to Herrman Lewis could not have taken place without the issue of the Order-in-Couneil, but there had been no avoidance of the limitation provisions of the Act. They got the Order-in-Council pursuant to the limitation provisions of the Act. To another question, witness objected that Mr. Massey had said that, the alienation was confirmed by the board before the Gazette containing the Order-in-Council was issued. As a matter of fact, it was not. What the board did Was to confirm tho sale, subject to two conditions being complied with—the issue of the Gazette and their being satisfied s~ to the Native owners having other land. He knew that the Gazetto was not issued until afterwards. Witness agreed that, with these Exceptions, the principal portions of his statement, quoted by Mr. Massey, . were substantially correct. Mr. Massey said from the minutes of tho board it appeared that it confirmed the resolutions in each case, the agreement not to be signed until tho conditions mentioned abovo had been complied with. | Mr. Herries remarked. that apparently the resolutions were confirmed, but tho instrument of alienation was not to be signed until these two conditions had been complied with. •To Sir .las. Carroll: Tire offer of Lewis to sell to the Government for .£28,000 was not accepted. • Tho Government at first was willing to buy at this price,, but afterwards obtained a report from Departmental officers, and concluded that it would not lw justified. At that timo no one imagined that tho price sub-1 sequently obtained for this land could bo ' obtained. Reserving the Minerals. Sir James Carroll: Mr. Massey intimated that the company had reserved tho mineral rights? Witness: I know that the minerals aro merely a part of tho lands, and that tho limitation provisions apply just as much to tho minerals as to any other, part. Any sale of the land must carry a salo of the minerals?—"Of course they can preserve the minerals, but it must be done in accordance with tho limitation provisions of the Act." Mr. Massey: Have you not seen it stated that they intend to reserve the areas containing minerals?—" They can .only preserve them in these areas." Mr. Dive: Mr. Bowler is a paid agent as trustee. Don't you think that is likely to influence him if an application is made to tho Maori Laud Board for an extension of time? "I think not; I think it is casting a reflection. Mr. Dive: I don't*wish that to be inferred for one moment. Mr. Dalziell: Mr. Bowler entered this work without any question of remuneration being raised at all. It was two or three months afterwards that tho question .was raised by his head office. Then they suggested that something should'be paid for it, seeing that part of Mr. Bowler's services would be used in this work. Tho suggestion was not made by Mr. Bowler or witness, but by the Department. Further questioned, witness said that the company could only reserve the minerals on an area of 3000 acres, and could only do that on third-class land. Mr. Massey: But they could reserve a number of blocks, each of three thousand acres. Witness replied that if the company sold blocks to their chairman and other individuals that would bo perfectly within the Jaw. This concluded Mr. Dalziell's evidence. . "Nothing is Impossible." Tho next witness called was Mr. Herrman Lewis, whose examination had been interrupted a'week earlier. . Mr. Herries: What made you go in'for this speculation ? ■ .. . Mr. Lewis: Oh, I go into many speculations! ' • ( You don't intend to farm the land?— '*Oh, yes, lam looking for twenty bush'fallers now. Not for this property?—" No." Who wero your solicitors when you purchased tho lease? —"I had a good many transactions with solicitors. I bought tho property through Messrs. Travcrs, Campbell, and No one \rae acting for him when ho mado the first salo to Chambers, on May 19, 1908. The question ol sale by the Natives was first raised when Pepeae Eketono came to Wellington at tho end of 1908. Three Natives at that time signed a paper in reforonco to their wanting to sell for ,£15,000, subject to tho approval of tho other Natives. Ho did not know whether the remaining Natives approved. Other matters came up. He had never doubted the validity of the leases. The English mortgagees lent .£17,500 on tho property. About two years and a half ago ho would have been quite satisfied to sell his interest to tho Government for .£'28,000. '

Mr. Jlerries: What was the object of your retaining 7000 acres ?—I havo got throe boys. And that was your object in retaining the 7000 acres ?—Oil, I don't know. A man hps a. lot of objects. Witness continued that ho was receiving a rental of .£l5O a year. It would increaso later. He had not spent any money on tho property. The 7000 acres wero vested in Mr. Bowler. Mr. Herries: And you liave to cut it up and sell it in proD?.r areas?— Yes. What would be tie position of the lessees then?— They havo a valid title and are all right. You havo to sell tho freehold?— Yes. And will anyone purchase subject to tho leases?— There are a good many ways of doing that. n Do you fjroposo to sell to the lessees?— Oh, they will conic in handy! Is it not rattier an impossible position? —Nothing is impossible. Nature has given mo good, fair, clear brains. Mr. Massey: Arc you paid up so far as your interest in the '10,000 acres is concerned ?—Yes. Have you any responsibility in connic-' tion with (his arcar—l don't think so. What value do you place upon tho 7000 acrcs?—l don't kno-v. Is it not a fact that you havo 'either had an offer of £i ail aero or offered it at that?— That is hearsay talk. I have had no offer. You are quite sure?—l am here to speak the truth. Ho was quite clear he had liad no offer. Are you acquainted with' a gentleman nflmecl Coverdalo?—Yes. Was lie associated with you in theso transactions?—Ho had nothing whatever to do with it. To a further question witness said lie was not siito what liis liabilities had'been against the ,£7) ,000 that ho had received. The amount of ,£I2OO out of tho JClflOO worth of shares he had received represented his .total expenditure to tho Natives. The Committee adjourned until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday.