THE MOKAU LANDS.

Evening Post, Volume LXXXII, Issue 64, 13 September 1911, Page 7

THE MOKAU LANDS.

ENQUIRY RESUMED. A NATIVE GIVES EVIDENCE, STATEMENT BY MR, 1«\ G, '* DALZIELL. The enquiry into the Mokau lanflt transaction, was resumed before the Native Affairs Committee to-day, Mr. \V. T. Jennings presided. Pairnrokit P.ikihane, of Otaki, whose wife- had nvi inter<??t iji the Mokan blorki, stated that he had gone In „ Moka.ii in JtmV and found that the de«. me of tht> natives was to regain pod* session of their lands. The natives wer* informed that the money for the owneti, was lying at the po«t oftic«. Some de« clined lo draw their money and they were informed that if they did nob doj «o tho Government, or who ever pur» chased the land, would, tak© it fw nothing and that the money would b« estreated. The older owners decline^' however, tn take the money and they communicated \vit4i the chairman of the Native Affair Commit* tec by telegram asking tW they should be neard. The witnew gnve a vocital of what occurred at Te kurti and said his wife hful received "jyi^flre °* * lre purchase money— some £373 odd. ' '• The Chairman : What waiu your wifo reviving from the land previously. :•' Witness : "1 thihk £2 10? 3d pet aft< num."' Continuing, he wid tlmt hi* 1 : wife hurt consented to the sale of her interests in the (and. We. did not. knotr" Aether *}» hud any interest, in th&" 2500 shares in the company which jnoto '. owned th* land. As far an wittiest ' knew his wife had no interest in ami >' other tribal land. He beli&ved she had purchased about an, acre and a«quarttt,' in. a small settlement. REASONS FOB THE SALE. In reply to Sir James Carroll, witness ', admitted that the native had failed toraiw the necessary £800 to contest theleases. This, however, was not the real." son why he, as one of the committee, JiaH consented to the sale. He admit. ted ( that he had agreed to the sale. Sir James . How many natives have declined to take the peryaase money? • Witness replied thtft he knew of five* To Mr. Hmies i When his wife received her money n« deductions were made for expenses, To Mr. Ngata : Somo money was paM tb , hhim.l i m . b y, Mr< Httrd y{ but witness asked for that because, he had not a shiU lintt. in answer 1 to further questions by Mr. Hemes, witness eaid he consider. «d the Mokait lands would ha,v« beett worth 35s per aero if there had been no leases. The price paid for the land, he considered, was not a good one. The natives wer© objecting to the sal& through him now. Tuiti M'DonaliJ and Hardy Were the people who advised and pemia4ed the natives to sell. • Mr. Herries : Are you satisfied witH the conduct of M'Donald and Hardy? Witness : Tuiti and I were not very good friend*, We were rather at enmity because 1 declined to fall in with hi* view to agree to the sale. IN WHOSE INTEREST? Replying to Mr. Massey. the witness . repeated «iat Tuiti M'fionald and Hftrtiy hao: peritiadefl the natives, Mr, 'Massey ; Are we to understand that M'potiald and Itnrdy wetts acting in the interests of those who tlefcrreol to purchase the Mock ? Th£ Chairman said the qu«!tiott Wai ' not one which tould be ftlfowca. Mr. Massey : Then I will put it this way : In whose interests does the» wit* n^ss consider Tuiti M 'Donald ahd Hardy were acting. Wtihess! They were, together with, 1 m, opposing ths eale. He added tJiat the hatives wero eventually led to thft belief that owi&g to the difflcultieß con* neefced with the. block the best thing to do waa to sell. Witness, in reply to other question* _ by Mr. Mafisey, ea^id he had bean m>. quested by other owne-re-^beisides hie wife—in the Mokau bloxsk to come* and give evidence before the committee ob« jecting to the sale. The Chairman: Did thwo objactfinffl accept the purchase money? Wttneas! No. Are they Te Whiti«it€s?— •! ami not certain of that. ' Sir J&mee Cftrrall! te it not a. facti that the owne,f« in Mokau are divided/ into two parties?— l cannot answer that. was there not a selling party and fltt anti-selling party?— Y<», that is so. Proceeding, watnesft «aid that he wa« present, at tho meeting at Te Kuiti on Sth April. Jte had put in in. accottrfh' for £60 odd, Heeatrtei tJiey had been, told by Tuiti M'Donald that tho company wa« to pay all expenses. MR DAtZIELL'S EVIDENCE. Fredk. George Dalgiell, solicitor, Wel» lington, made «. etatement '«ov«ring tho transaction from the time his firm be* cfttn& connected with the Mokau block up to th© time of. the eale w4th the natives. * Mr. Itcrries paid that Mr. Dakielli had been present while tho other wit* nesse» were giving ovntenco. tn this respect he had a. ]pe<?ulia.r advantage. The witness should not traverse Btate* menu by other witnesses. Witne?is said he did not propose to dd this. He was first consulted by Herr» man Lewis in August, 1908. Lewi« wa« then the registered own** of the leasee, and he had entered into an agreemeßb with certain gentlemen in Hawken Bay, to sell hie fights- for £25»000, and at* eighth interest. Me explained the PeJa» tionehip of Messrs. Travore and Cantp« bell ac agent* in New Zealand for tflowere'B (Loftdoh) trustees. He' also explained that I/ewis wa* weighted with a mortgage of £14,000, and the titles, to the leases had been attacked. In this position Lewis came to consult witneM. Witness came to the conclusion that i{ Lewis could not complete his eale to th« Hawkes Bay purcha-sers, he might have, a claim againet tho trustees or their solicitors.. Lewis was not in a position to finance th© purchase unless he could get such a title as he would be ftbl© ta borrow on, VARIOUS CONSULTATIONS. Witness coittult&d with Mr. M'Le&a, solicitor for the H&wkw Bay pur» chaeers,,attd Mr. Campbell, solicitor for the trustees. He euggeeted that it would be futile to go on "with triangulw litigation. Mr. Campbell, however, took up the position that he wa« foteed by the trustee* into the position of pressing Lewis, and the Hawkrt Bay people desired to retire from the pur- * chase. On 26th September. 1908, wit. ne«! wrote to the Native Minister, «ug» Restinflj that the position of the land. ' should be dealt with tinder the Native, Lamt FHltometit Act, and that ihe interests of the natives should be decided by some rp&potwiblo tribttnal. Mr. Tt'eadwell, acting for Mr. Jonee, told wit-nose that in Mr. Jones's interests ho would have to oppose any legislation that wa« not in Mr. Jonos'e interest. Accordingly after consultation with Ijewie witness entered into negotiations with Mr. Treadwell, which extended, over the whole session. Witoeas'* original propupal to Mr. Trendwell wbb that Mr. Jones should be allowed the •

t.

, •hould d# purchased. It waa thought %kfc itt« tiW that 'thee% interests' cdti'd ■'•4ie purchased at under £15,000. Lewie i.-v/a* to receive his mortgage money, Mi 511,000. in addition, and the balance v^wm to go to Mr. Jones. WJtnees did, Tinot know whether the proposal was put "Wefore Mr. Jorles, but nothing .came of >*it. Mr. Treadwell made a- counter >proitipoaa!: witness advised hi« client to ac« yoept it. but Mr. Lewis declined. A ><d«adlock arose, and it -was finally agreed $that Mr. Treadwell and witness should "■wait on Dr. tfindlay— w.ho wae not the {/Minister interested— 'ftnd a«k-hi» advice v^bout getting a ftoyal Commission ap-«-*pinted to go into the wnole position. fM& tMoughfc it would be now agreed that ] ■" lewis's claim to the leases was absolute. J yDr. Findlay toid them quit* frankly* *that in view of the unsatisfactory conX'fcltisjon of tJw Miekle ' Commission/ was sick of Commtfsions. C LENGTHY BARGAINING. '«■ Negotiation* went on till December, * "when he wrote .a- letter - i<> ■ Messrs gravers and Campbell. Throughout thrt ■^negotiations he was being constantly - (pressed by the other two parties, inWitness vead h» letter under: j > date 17th pecetnber, setting out th& position as ifc then st<x>d. In due couiw commission ©nefuired into the posi' %ion (Mr. Ngata irr the irtcantirae l«Jf ing |. to be a member of tho comniis- f fegion). Witness declared, that ■ the comfpjfision had no jurisdiottaw whatever to 3rythe validity of thp l?a,«es. .but the findings -of the commissiuii were impormrn. J ( ANCIENT HISTORY. jf 1« th« <iaiM> oi Block f»\ ib was found *|)y th« commifwion thai mvml&in oi the had not signed/ and evon aafjiuming it' ko be legal, it was liable forfeiture because .the covenants had *aiot been carried out.' In regard to the 1 pother three blocks, the'»commlesion found vsfch«t the leases were void. It had sine**»een proved conclu«ivel,y thaK ever,/ j*<rwn«r in Mock F had signed. Subse*Sjfliiently both Messrs. 801 l and. Skerrett *Ead advised that legislation passed had 3%h« effect of making the J eases in' reIfispect of G, H, and G blocks good. ' In ypact, .the only defect of the leases was* Mh<& breach of covenant in regard to :)ft)lock F. i& Witness went into the position of the ■^blocks at some coneiderabk length, and ajMiat^d that 'some time prior to the publltaation. of the commission's report there $fcad been sc4ne nogotiafciqn with, the aa to whether they would put vA price on their ■ property. They totd ; 4 'Lewk they were prepared to sell for -<£13,00G, but- after the publication Of »',the commission's report they changed fetheir opinidn. Witness read another he had sent to the solicitors to fjfthe Hawkes Bay people, in which he $«aid, amongst other things, that the jjflon. James Carroll was anxious to see *iiiie block cut up and settled in small p arms. The writer also urged the necessity of coming to a- > working 'basis for Settlement, Th© Government could not indaced to take the matter up and' ,'witness entered into fresh negotiations , ( with Mr. Treadwell. They could do .nothing with Mr. Jones' because he always seemed to imagine that the .parties would gr>^further if they exhi•■cited any intention -to go near has terms, . THE LATER NEGOTIATIONS. ; , On, 16th January, 1911, witness wrote «• letter to Hit Joseph Ward suggesting that in tho absence of an timicable settlement the best"thinß would be to take vthe lattd oompukorily and pettk the /lessee* interest*). The let tea.' also set out ,the position at. that date. On let febw»a.ry wftriees wrote again to Mr. Treadwell iflformin-g him that Cabinet had definitely resolved to purchase the land 'if on a valuation by Government /valuers- the value wa* found to be in the region of 20s of 22s 6d per acne. •The valuation, it was found, did not justify purchase by the Government, snd ywitneM then suggested that the Govern'menfc should purchase the interests of i-he natives atid the interests of the 7e«se«s could be dealt with comptilsoriiy. Later on witness wa« informed that *the Government 'would not take eomptiljorily for two Masons:— (1) That the Katavee wanted £22 t SOO which was #$500 too mach; (2) that the Government did not ?»ee its wav to take .comjpulsorily a coal mine. The • Government *aid ifc was impossible for a-ny one to (make a reasonaole estimate of the comtwnsation which would be Awarded th« de«»ees for their interest in the coal. TThey were told it wae not a business ipropositiort. Some time in October M^r. Skemtti to the. Natrve Minister protesting s «gainst the way in whkh the mattef being shelved and suggesting that 'an order in. council etoould be issued al« , fowing the Natives interests to bs pur- , '-chased by tiie lessee. Both Mr Ske?- j ■trett aid witness continued to urge this j '■coarse, and on (Ah, Itajeiabet 1 they were* <nltimately informed it. had been dcci- ,< 'ded to i««ue an» order In council. j At this stage the- committee adjoarnerl j WL to-mojerow when Mr. Dalzfell will \ \A» statement. .