THE MOKAU INQUIRY.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1245, 29 September 1911, Page 2

THE MOKAU INQUIRY.

INTERESTING EVIDENCE. STATEMENT BY MR. J. JONES, '• THE WHOLE THING WAS A PLOT." The Native Affairs Commit tee continued the Mokau Inquiry yesterday, Mr. W. T. Jennings presiding. Other members present were Sir Jas. Carroll, the lion. A. T. Ngata, Dr. To -H:\ngihiroa, and Messrs. 11. Dive, T. I'arata, If. J. Greenslade, W. 11. Ilerries, and I!. 11. Rhodes. Mr. W. 1". Massey attended.

At opening tlic-io was a lengthy discussion between tho chairman and Mr. Joshua Jones, who attended as a witness, in reference to an allegation by the latter that Mr. Jennings absented himself from an interview with Mr. M'Nab on March 31, 190 S.

Tho chairman at length remarked: "Then if you. stick to what you say you are swearing what is deliberately incorrect." Mr. Greenslade deprecated this utterance, remarking that tho wituoss might be mistaken. Mr. Jones stated that he would deal with- the matter outside. "You think you arc free in Parliament," lie told -the chairman, "ln)t you are not free." Mr. I'arata said lie could not see that any good would bo done, by all these personalities. Ho suggested that Mr. Jones should, proceed with his statement.

The chairman: "In regard to a particular statement, I say that it is not true. You have withdrawn it. and therefore I accept your statement." Mr. Jones asked that the clerk should be directed to produce letters from himself (Joues) to the Committee, dated August 21, 20, and 29, and September 9, 21, and 22, and one from (he Speaker to the Committee dated September 22. The chairman stated that the matter in connection with those letters had been decided by the Committee.

Mr. Jones: 1 desire, as a witness, to put tlieni in. Mr. Ngata: What point is it tliaL you wish to bring out? Mr. Jones: X'iie letters speak for themselves.

Mr. Kgatas 1 take, it that it .is for us to docide as to whether they should go in as evidence, but it is for Mr. Jones to tell us what point lie desires to emphasise. ilf. Jones slated lliat lie had kept copies of the more important letters, which ho would proelnco is necessary. Tho cominitteo could then refuse them if it liked. Mr. Jones then proceeded to read correspondence between himself and tho committee. Eventually lie was interrupted, and it wa.s agroeil that the letters should be taken as read.

the Comspondcnci. On August 2G Mr. Jones wrote to tho committee asking that he bo permitted to appear as a principal instead of as an ordinary witness. The recommendations of committees in 1908 and IDiO iiad been ignored by the Government, and ho lllercicre asked lenvo to place his own tacts, through counsel, befolv the committee. On August 2S, 1911, Mr. Jones wrote to the chairman of tho Committee (Mr. Jennings) stating that he would attend tile. Committee as a witness, under protest, on the grounds that Mr. Jennings's presence as chairman or in any capacity would bo most improper, as well as a menace to lair inquiry, and that he did not consider it proper or just that Sir James Carroll should be seated on tho Committee, as it was proven that his colleague, Dr. Findlay, had ail interest in this- case, notwithstanding' his denials. Tho action of Sir James Carroll himself in advising the Governor to' issue an Ordcr-in-Council woull nteessiiily come under review by Parliament and the constituencies. to whom it might not appear prudent that he shoul.l judge his own case. Mr. Jones also questioned tho propriety of Mr. Macdonald, the Government Whip, sitting on the Committee, as ho had already adjudicated upon tho matter, on the A to L Committee of 1910, and was permitted to contradict an important statement of fact by Mr. Jones with a statement which was incorrect.

On September 9 Mr. Jones wrote to the Committee again drawing attention to his application and stating that Sir James Carroll bad told him that ho would prolv ' ably be permitted to mate a statement. On September 12, Mr. Jennings wrote, as chairman of the c-omrnittce, to inform Mr. Jones that he could not be permitted to appear as a principal or by counsel at tho Mokau Inquiry. On September 19 Mr. Jones .WTote to Sir Arthur Guinness, Speaker of tho House of Representatives, pointing out that- ho had been refused permission by the Native Affairs Committee to appear as a principal in the Mokau case, and stating that the chairman, Mr. Jennings, had already endeavoured to materially prejudice his case by making statements in tho Houso during tho last and present sessions which he (Mr. Jones) questioned, but had not had an opportunity of replying to. Mr. Jones added that ho believed Mr. Jennings still remained_the agent of tho people iii London, and in this country, who, Mr. .Tones alleged, had defrauded him. Mr, Jones' requested the Speaker to intorveno in order that ho might get a fair and impartial hearing.

Statement by Mr, Jones, ' • Mr. Jones then read a statement, of which the following is a brief synopsis He accepted, the suggestion of the committeo that lie should again petition Par- ■ liainent more as an insult than goneros- . ity, inasmuch as two petitions, one pre- , sc'nted on the advice of the Prime Minister, had been considered, and favourable recommendations made upon them, but the Government had paid no attention to either. The suggestion was in _ common with all the proceedings in this case, where one member of tho Cabinet,, at least, had a pecuniary interest. The- A to 1, Committee of 1910, in the interests of Dr. Findlav's firm, permitted procedure hostile to the petition then under consideration. The committee should under-, stand that a Cabinet that ignored tlm recommendations of two committees would not stay at that, and the suggestion that it desired the pastime of flouting another petition conveyed no other impression than that the facts were not required at this inquiry. In connection with this case there had been many years of litigation in England. A lawyer named Flowers in connection with another named Travel's, of Wellington, had eueieavoured, 'by improper, menus, to deprive him of this property. Flowers was held guilty by the High Court in London of malpractice as. a solicitor in this matter and one of the Lords of Appeal expressed regret that Travel's was not in En "land to be also dealt with and made fo pay a heavy penalty for his dishonesty. I'lowers bv the same judgment wa»mado a tru'teo'for him (Jone:-.'. On July. 190-1 Jones gave his own trustee a mortgage over the property at the request os the latter. Flowers died in September, 1!)0t, ond his executors stood in his shoes. Having prevented his dealing with the property, the execulors m 1907, put it lip for sale at New Plymouth and bought in lor the mortgage money.. Iho statement of Dr. 'int.lay. in llans.i d, 1910 Poge 599, that lus firm. t. client, lleirm'iu loin's, aud bought from the moil•'a'gees through .the Registrar'of the Supremo Court, was untrue. Alter detailin- subsequent' legal transactions, Mr. ! Jones stated that about July 23, Lewis informed him. that, knowing there, would be trouble about tho title, lie had bespoken the services of Findlay and Da 1r.iell specially for tnc case in the belief that Findlay could square anything wrong in the title. The services of the linn, it appeared, were not. required till early in August. Lewis made a good hit anparent'lv inasmuch as lie never would have got a title except for an Onler-in-Council assented to improperly and lllegallv, he (Jones) maintained, by the Cabinet' oil December 5, 191(1, and earned into effect by Mr. Carroll on March 10, 1911, when tiio Governor's signature was appended.

"A Very Hard Case." Mr Jones staled that he approached tho Prime Miniver, through .Mr. Jennings M P in August, 1908. Mr. Jennings represented that it was a very hard ease and tho Prime Minister said ho know l to be so. Sir Joseph Ward suggested that' lie (Jones) should petition Parliament. The Prime Minister staled that lie was verv sorry and that what a emumitteo would rccommend in favour of Mr. Jones he would do his utmost to carry

out'. Dr. J'imlhiv, fpeakins in l-hc M 1 * per Uon>o in IMS, romnrkod thai whore rights had Ijltii (loioatinl in an nnlair wi\y was some precedent, lor recourse? to Parliament, but that it was unconstitutional to seek such intr-rfiTonci! in Mich a as this. At this timo Dr. rindlay .s firm was acting lor ilcrrinan in the Mohan transactions. At a later .stage Dr. Timllny professed to know nothing of Iho case, yet' ho was a ot tho property <if the time. On October /, lllilS, .Mr. Treadwcll saw Dr. Kindlay and informed Mr. Jones that Dr. l'indlay had n*fused the inquiry for tho reason that other committees that had been set up had not reported as the Government expected and this one, if appointed, miifhl iVit likewise, 110 put forward termsvery onerous terms—on behalf of mail Lewis .and told him (Mr. Trcadwell) I'o £0 and sw Dnlzioll and get the terms put into proper form on paper, and both were io go and sec Dr. Findlay when this was done. Messrs. Treadwcll and Dalziell wont to see Dr. Findlaj three ot four days later. Lewis gave evidence before the Council Committee in 10QS that ho bad paid no money on Die pnrehnse for Ihe rea?on that he had no soon title that he or someone else would pay when he did pet a title. This evidence was not new in the depositions, though lie (Jones) was careful to note the shorthand writei lak« it down at the time. Dr. Findlay , would not and did not graut on inquiry. Sir. Jones declared himseli satisfied that if Dr. Findlay iiad brought the matter before Cabinet the inquiry would have taken place. He this on the assurance of Sir Joseph Ward -a few weeks previously. About the beginning of November, 1908, ho informed the Hon. J. Hiss as to the terms demanded by Dr. Findlay. Mr. Kicrg was astonished, .and wrote to the Prime Minister on the subject. On November 5 Dalzio.U called on Treadwoll, and told him that a* Mr. Rigg had written to tho Prime Minister, the Attorney-General had decided to send tho matter to the Stout Commission—as Treadwcll understock to his (Jones's) He wroto Treadwcll on the subject on November 7, ' which letter he produced before the Committee of 1910, and asked that it bo print- , ed, but the chairman carefully omitted » do so, as he did with respect to another [ import-ant paper.

The Stout-Palmer Commission, He was satisfied that the Stout-Palmer Inquiry was the outcome of the threat that Dalziell conveyed from Findlay to Treadwoll. lie maintained that tips Commission had 110 authority to inquire into the Mokau lands for any purposo whatever; they being, for all purposes, under the jurisdiction of the Native Land and Supreme Courts. Even Dalr.iell, Findlay's partner, had stated his belief that tlie Commission had no legal standing to inquire into tho Mokau case, and Sir J. C.irraJl with Mr. Ilerries had quoted other opinions that the Stout-I'almer Commission had no legal authority- The socallcd. inquiry was held unknown to him, and ho did not know of it until some weeks after it was over, when he at once wrote to Sir Joseph Ward remonstrating, but got no satisfaction. It surely must be a matter of grfcat pride to the Chief Justice, tho Native Court Chief Judge, and the Minister for Justice, to prompt

these Natives to repudiate on agreement with one who had befriended their ancestors and never got a penny out of them— for pecuniary gain to some persons- It had been proven before the 'Committee that some .Csfi,oofl had bean netted beloro an aero had been sold, and, according to Lewis, who never put a pennv in the property—he had never had it to put in— somo .E71.000 passed through Findlay and Dalzicll's hands. Mr. Jones continued that Dr. Findlay denied blankly that ho had ever blocked tho inquiry recommended by tho Legislative Council Committee of 1!!08, whereas Mr. Treadwell wrote on October 20, 1908, that Dr. Findlay had plainly intimated that the Government would not appoint a commitlco. In another place ("Hansard," 1910, p. 595) Dr. Findlay had stated that he supported tho setting up of a Commission, but tho Solicitor-General advised that it'could not bo set up in face of the Oliinemuri decision. His (Jones's) contention was that Findlay refused the inquiry on October 7, 1903, and the Ohinemuri 'decision was not given until May, 1909. The decision, in any event, had no fearing on the Mohan caso. It wvs only after a cable had . reached him (Jones) from 'Loudon, offering to' purchaso 'flio properly, that Dr. Findlay voted for tho -inquiry, if at all. The mortgages of Findl'iy and T. G. M'Carthy were effacted on May 20. This might have been a coincidence, but ho was inclined to think that it was tho act of Findlay to rush the mortgages, consequent upon tho London cable offering to purchase. Ml'. Jones added that he believed it was to block the Government purchase that Dr. Findlay voted, for tho Royal Commission, which , would create delay and enable the deal to bo effected by Findlay's side—as had been . done. Tho Ordcr-in-Council. In reference to tho issuo of the Ordcr-in-Council Mr. Jones stated that he had written to tho Native Minister and to the President of the Maori Land Board in . 1910 and to the Hon, Mr. Carroll as recently as March 11, 1911, requesting information of any intended dealings with the.se lands, but no reply came. Oil March 11 he wrote and registered a letter to the president of tho Maori Land Board, but

did not receivo a reply until March 25, when ho received a letter from Mr. Bowler, faying that the business had Iwen completed—this looked to him like a trick. On December 8, 1910, as the Prime Minister was leaving for Rotorua. lie shook hands with witness and asked him to call on his return, when ho would certainly "fix him up." The Prime Minister did not mention that, with Findlay and Carroll, ho hail agreed on December 5 that the Ordcr-in-Council should be issued. Mr. Jones stated he made icve.v.i.l abortive attempts to see the Prime Minister on his return, and at length secured an interview with him ok January 25, 1911. The Prime I Minister told him 'that he co.ild not buy the freehold as he had undertaken ta do. and he could not set up the inquiry recommended by the Committee o'f 1908, as tile Solicitor-General had advised him

that ho could not legally do either. Mr. Juibs: state) that he expressed a belief that the Solicitor-Geneva! Ind advijo.l Iho I'rime Minister wrongly in the interests of Dr. Findlay, to whom ho owiml his appointment. Alter dealing further with this Oriier-in-Couneil and mentioning that a letter tb Mr. Okcy, staling that the mattor had been referred to the Native Minister, did not reach him until Febrnary 17, although it should have r u achcd him on February 7. Mr. Jones stated that ho wa.s 'much iii Wellington alter tho order wa.s sanctioned by Cabinet, but Mr. Carroll never, slid a word In him about it. Ho had no doubt that the whole thing was a plot. "Parliament Deluded." A concluding passage in Mr. Jones's statement is as follows:—"Parliament was deluded last session into passing (wo sections, originated by tho Attorney-General, in the Council, for the suggested protection of tho Premier against.a certain pamphlet, the contents of which everybody knew all about. It never dawned upon Parliament that there wjis a Nativo land transaction ill which the author of the sections was interested, that required to be hushed up. Dr. Findlay maintained that In; had 110 interest, direct w in-

direct, ill this matter, or in the business of Findlay and Hab'.iell. Yet he was a co-mortgagee on the register ovor portion of this property, and draws an income annually from the business of his firm. The Committee has only to look at Hie largo, sums (hat have passed through the firm's books, in this Mokau business, to judge what interest he has." Mr. tireenslade sngjosled that it. was unfair In bring tlie "Black pamphlet" into this inquiry. Mr. Jones: "Dr. Findlay wanted, to cone?al this transaction." He added lliat his (witness's) reason was to givo tho object for so treating him (.tones). lie did not suppose any other man in tho colonies had ever been trouted as ho had been. The chairman allied lliat the witness be allowed to proceed, and said lit thought lh« Commilteo should sustain wh;it had been taken down. having concluded hi-s statement, Mr. .limes, armed with a voluminous mass of papers and plans, entered into a detailed criticism of the report of Iho Stout--I'aimer Commission. He stated, interaiia, lint although Sir Robert Slout had prale;.M'd ignorance of any agreement in writing between him (.Jones) aad the Natives, he wit* acquainted with 'many of the earlier papers and plans, .vul had signed a proclamation, defining tho boundaries ol' the Mpkau Block, on bcha 11 of Iho Hon. .T. Ballance, then Native Minister. There being no other witnesses to bo i.alled, the inquiry is concluded so far as the taking of evidence is concerned.