THE HINE CHARGES.

Evening Star, Issue 14513, 3 November 1910, Page 7

THE HINE CHARGES.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL INVESTIGATION. INTERESTING EVIDENCE BY MR BARRON. [FbOM Offß PaRLUMEWARX REPORTER.] WELLINGTON, November 3. • Tho Legislative Council’s Committee of Inquiry into the charges made by Mr Hine, M.P., against the Hon. T. Kennedy Macdonald in connection with the sale of the Nai Noi and Waiwotu properties to thr Government sat again last night. The Hon. J. B. Callan presided. Mr M. Myers appeared on behalf of Mr Hine, and Messrs C. H. Skerrett, K.C., and Sharpe for Mr Macdonald. Tho properties mentioned are situated at the Hutt, and were bought as sites for workers’ dwellings. Mr Myers, on being asked which witness he intended calling first, explained that Mr Leigh (who sold the Nai Nai property to the Government) hatT not got the telegram summoning him from Christchurch in time to catch the previous night’s bout for Wellington. Jas. M’Kenzie, Commissioner of Crown Lands, Wellington district, said the Nai Nai property had been bought' before he arrived m this district. The expenditure on tho property since its purchase was £1,539, of which £1,250 was for draining and reading Two-thirds of the £1,250 was for draining. Roughly speaking, the total income to date from the property was £1,463, of which £936 was realised by the sale of 5 acres 3 roods 10 poles, being at the rate of £156 per acre. The land sold was lor special purposes—viz., a school site (purchased by the Education Board) and a recreation site. The gross rental from the property was £333 16s per annum, of which about £IOO was for grazing rights. Tho land bad been subdivided into areas ranging from 33 perches up to 2 acres 11 perches. Altogether there were 378 sections. None of them hod been disposed of. 'Aie land at present was held under the Land for Settlements Act. The Government wore waiting, like everyone else, for better times to do something with the land. To Mr Skerrett: Tho Education Department was under no obligation to purchase from the Cro.vn if it thought it could get better land elsewhere. Witness was absent from Wellington from 1901 to 1908. He returned in the year of the slumpThe only information witness had in relation to sales in tin district was in regard to the Epuni Settlement, 40 chains from the Nai Nai estate. Tho land was sold at £95 per acre, and cut up into sections at £lO6 per acre, and eventually allotted in 1904 at an unimproved value of £204 per acre. Mr Skerrett: The officers of the Land Department anticipated a substantial increase of settlement with improved means of communication. Witness: I heard to-day that it appeared as if the tram terminus was to be put there. He went on to say that notwithstanding the slump, the Land Board knew from transactions which came before them that goodwill was paid to lessees transferring their leases. Dr Findlay: Have nob the Government, wherever they have taken land compulsorily, had to pay not only the full value, but as a rule a great deal more for expenses —lawyers’ expenses particularly? Witness: Yes, as 4 rule they have. If the straightening of the Hutt line was going on to facilitate communication the Government would have to pay for that in resuming the land for the purpose of workers’ homes?— Yes. Assuming land to be necessary for the purpose of workers’ homes at Petone, and that the Government had in contemplation tho straightening of the Hutt line, would you consider it prudent to acquire tho land before the line was straightened and in operation!— Yes, as ' a general principle, but not especially for workers’ homes. It is wiser to purchase before a work is executed that would increase its value?— Yes.

Alexander Barron, retired Civil servant, and for nine years chairman of the Government Land Purchase Board, said he first visited the Nai Nai property iu May, 1904. Witness was accompanied by Messrs M'Gowan and Reece. On 17th April, 1905, witness paid a visit to the property iu company with the Hon. T. Duncan, Messrs Mar chant, Kensington, and Macdonald. He did not remember Mr Coverhill accompanying him on a visit to the estate at any time. Mr Myers: Were there any documents relating to ibis purchase which were not on the file? Witness: Ido not know of any. Between Mr Macdonald and any Minister?—No, not with a Minister. Air Leigh wrote to a Minister on one occasion. Did you, have any conference personally with any Minister in connection with this property? —Not particularly with regard to this property. Do yon remember the occasion when the Land Purchase Board decided to offer £l2O per acre for the land?— Yes. You subsequently offered £l5O per acre. There was apparently a week only between the offers. Can yfeu say whether during that period you saw any Minister in connection with the acquisition of this property?—l saw Mr Seddon with regard to properties in the Hutt, not particularly with regard to this one. In reply to another question, witness said that Mr Seddon never interfered iu the matter of price. Mr Seddon simply said ha was to get land at the Hutt. Witness did not know’ whether any other member of Parliament saw any other Minister in connection with the acquisition of the property. Mr Skerrett hero interposed with the suggestion that Mr Myers’s questioning of his witnesses amounted to cross-examina-tion. He did not propose to object, but it was unusual. Mr Myers was making some further observations, when he was stopped by the chairman, and Mr. Skerrett interposed with the observation that the attitude of his friend was that ho was “ready to wound, but afraid to strike.” The Chairman said this was a very improper observation. Mr Myers warmly resented MrSkerrett’s remark, and said that throughout the proceedings his learned friend had been casting reflections of which he desired to take no notice. The Chairman: I don I agree with Mr Skerrett. Proceed with your examination.

Mr Skerrett: 1 ignore the observation, all the same. Dr Findlay; I think that tho utmost freedom should be allowed to Mr Myers to establish anything against tho late’Mr Seddon that can be established. Mr Myers: lam not trying to establish anything against the late Mr Seddon. The Chairman; The Committee desire to have the examination as wide os possible, but if Mr Skerrett objects, very good. Mr Myers: This is an inquiry, and all relevant facts can be inquired into. I make no suggestions against the late Mr Seddon, nor is there any charge against him.

Mr Skmett: However, every , question b an insinuation. Dr Findlay : Mr Myers was asked at the beginning whether he wanted his charge .to convey any innuendo or suggestion against any member of the Government of that day or any officer of the Gqvesrn- ' irient, and we have had his unequivocal statement that it was not so intended. If these questions now asked with regard to interviews between officers of the Government and the late Prime Minister are not intended as an innuendo or suggestion, J should like Mr Myers to say what purpose they serve. Mr Myers: I have indicated it. Counsel proceeded to atato Mr Bane's contention, that it was wrong of members of Parliament to act as agents for the sale of properties to the Grown lor remuneration, and went cm to state tbo main facts elidted in evidence. Mr Skerrytt objected that Mr Myers was ' making aspeeeh. “I most confess.” coot tinned oouaepl, "that I cannot understand the object of the qneattons tmleea it is to - - convey a distinct inatnaataon that there or* : improper influence- brought to bear by

the late Mr Seddon upon the witness now before us. The insinuation is obvious. ’ Mr Myers: Did Mr Sodden discuss with you the price of land? ' The Chairman (to Mr Myers): You admitted the other night that you made no charge against the Government in connection with the sale or against any Government officer. I suggest that you should, so far ao possible, not question the witness m liny way that would seem to reflect on the Government or make out that tho Government had done something wrong. Continuing, witness said that in the deed of conveyance he bad given no instruction to counsel to omit tho price. Mr Skorrett (to Mr Myers) :_Do you suggest that in preparing a deed it as usual to do so?

Mr Myers: Yes. Mr Skerrett; Then, as a counsel and conveyancer of long striding, I contradict you. Mr Myers ad bared to his statement. Dr Findlay said that the chairman was a legal gentleman of long standing, and ho could form his opinion on the point. Witness said that ho had had several interviews with Mr Macdonald concerning tho purchases. He could not give any indicar lion of the exact number of times which Mr Macdonald had seen him prior to the purchase, nor could he state definitely what Mr Macdonald valued the land at. No doubt he would consider it worth the price at which it was offered —£200 per acre. Mr Myers asked where tho record of the offer by Macdonald, Wilson, and Co. to soil the property to the Government was. Witness, after searching tho file and finding no reedfdf said that the offer might have been made verbally, or the Board might have considered it on Mx Seddon’s telegram. He had no recollection of anyone seeing him with regard to an. agreement between one Jounax and Loo. A draft of the agreement was submitted to him, but ho did not remember anyone from Messrs Wilford and Levi’s office discussing the price of the property with him. To Mr Skerrett: Mr Levi was introduced, instructed to prepare the transfer to the Crown, and was, therefore, being solicitor to the Crown, not at liberty to divulge communications between himself and witness. The recital of the purchase money in the transfer was merely for stamp duty purposes, and as tho Crown paid no stamp duty there was no necessity for lociting the price in the transfer. _ The suggestion that witness gave Mr Levi express instructions to leave the price out was untrue. There was not a word of truth in it. Neither did Mr Levi ring him up by telephone to ask for instructions on this point. To Dr Findlay; He had been forty-nine years in the Government service. The conception he took of his duties as chairman of the Land _ Purchase Board was that of a buyer doing the best he could for himself. Ho had done more for the people than he would probably have done for himself. He had never prostituted his position by suggesting a purchase price above what ho believed to be the real value. Ho had always had tho support of the Board. Mr Kennedy Macdonald hud not influenced him one iota to place a higher price on the land than he believed it to bo worth. Ho (witness) was doing the best for his client—i.e., the country —• in this transaction. “Mr Macdonald,’’ added witness, “did not have any more influence on my mind than if he had been any other land agent in Now Zealand. , Dr Findlay; Was there at any interview between the late Mr Seddon_ and yourself any attempt on his part to influence you in making a recommendation of which you did not approve? Witness: No; never. Mr Seddon never said a word about tho price in any transaction that ever we had. Ho was very anxious to get land at the Hutt, and veiy eager to buy as much as possible. He pressed a little strongly, perhaps, to acquire land at the Hutt, but he never influenced us or said a word about price.

Dr Findlay: Then, so far as any suggestion that you were placed under influence by the Prime Minister, you meet that suggestion by a positive denial? Witness: That is so.

How long were you associated with Mr Seddon iu land purchase transactions?— From the beginning of 1902 until his death.

Had you ever reason to believe that Mr Seddon ever took a bribe cither from Mr Leigh or Mr Kennedy Macdonald?—l cannot conceive of his thinking of doing so. Mr Myers; I did not suggest it. Dr Findlay : Havo you reason to believe that Mr Seddon. was in collusion with Mr Kennedy Macdonald to foist this property on the State at a higher price than it was worth? Witness: None whatever.

Have you reason to believe that there was fraud on his part in connection with this matter? —No.

Have you reason to believe that there was a bribe accepted by any other Minister of the day?—No, I have not. Nor any fraud on their part?— The thing is inconceivable. Is Mr Kennedy Macdonald the first member of Parliament who has ever spoken to you about the acquisition of estates under the Land for Settlements Act?— Certainly not. Many other members of Parliament have done so. Do you recognise the “danger and the vice” of this? —I thought 1 was quite strong enough not to be influenced. 1 merely dealt with them as land agents. Supposing Mr Hine had come to you?— It would havo made no difference. Have discussions with you with regard to the purchase of these estates been entirely confined to one side of the House, or both sides?—l know no sides. At any rate members of Parliament generally have discussed the purchase of estates with you?— Yes. And you havo seen no impropriety in that? —No; they have simply urged the acquisition of estates in their districts. Mr Macdonald being a member of the Upper House influenced you not in the slightest degree? —Not in the slightest. Whether it was Mr Macdonald or anyone else it was simply the same. THE SECOND ALLEGATION. The second allegation against Mr Macdonald with reference to the Waiwetu property sale to the Government was then proceeded with. The allegation was similar to that in tho first charge. Mrs Love, a native woman, now residing at Nelson, said she had owned a property at Waiwetu of about 64 acres. Prior to 23rd October, 1905, witness had business relations with Messrs Macdonald, Wilson, and Co. Prior to this she had no other relations with tho firm except in regard to the sale of a property on Lambton Quay. Neither did she owe Macdonald, Wilson, and Co. any money at that time. Witness signed an. agreement on 25rd October, 1905, to sell the Waiwetu property to Macdonald, Wilson, and Co., and received £IOO to bind her. Mr Myers; Do you know whether, prior to signing tho agreement, there had been any effort by Macdonald, Wilson, and Co. to sell to the Government? - Witness: No; they told me they wanted to buy. Tho agreement was not completed, however, and the Government bought 25 acres. Do you remember either Mr Macdonald or Mr Wilson saying anything regarding a sMo to tho Government? —Mr Wilson did not, but Mr Macdonald did. What did he say?—He said I should sell to tho Government, otherwise the property would be taken under the Public Works Act. 1 did not want to sell tho land, bccanso it was given to me by my father. Continuing, witness said she understood a commission was charged on the sale, bat she could nob state tho amount. Certain moneys were paid back for expenses. Sho could not get a list of the expenses. The sale price was £6,075. Mr Myers: What became of toe rest of the property ? Witness: Macdonald, Wilson, and Co. claimed it—took it for moneys owing on a mortgage or something. Mr Myers; As a matter of fact it was mortgaged and disposed oi under private sale.

'Alex- L- Wilson, auctioneer and land agent, formerly in partnership with Mr Macdonald, said the firm had once acted as agents for Mrs Love. Ho knew of the agreement previously referred to being drawn up, but be refused to be a party to the salo at 36,500. Mr Macdonald at the time wan acting in the capacity of attor-

ney or some such thing for Mrs Love. Witness objected to his name being attached to the document, and declined to have anything to do with tho transaction. He tola Mr Macdonald this. Sir Macdonald had mentioned the question of sale to the Crown, therefore the agreement was drawn up. The price mentioned in the agreement was £6,500. Tho commission paid on the sale of the 24 odd acres was 5 per cent,, or £303 15s. Half of that went to Mr Morrison after the matter had been contested in the law courts. In his opinion 5 per cent, was necessary on sales of native lands. The firm were financing the deal. Tho remainder of the property was mortgaged. Had tho purchase been completed at tho £6,500 mentioned in tho draft agreement there would have remained about 29 acres alter celling the 24 odd to the Government for £6,075. Ho supposed it was Mr Macdonald’s idea that the sale should be made to him (witness). It was not witness’s idea.

John D. Ritchie, land purchase officer, said the property was first brought under the notice of the Government by Macdonald, Wikon, and Co. on 31st August. On Ist September Mr Seddon directed the Board to negotiate'for purchase. The instruction was on the usual printed form. On September 17 Mr Coverhill, of the Valuation Department, valued the land at £260 per acre for the frontage land. In a later valuation ho valued tho property all round at £l5O per acre for tho flat land and £2 for the hilly land. £250 per acre was offered for the land on 17th October by the Government, but no further communication was received from Messrs Macdonald, Wilson, and Co. till November 11. On October 22 the recommendation of the Land Purchase Board was forwarded by Mr Barron to the Prime Minister. Eventually 24 odd acres were sold for £5,075. Jolm L. Morrison, land agent, said that in 1905 the management of Mrs Love’s, affairs was taken over by Macdonald, Wilspn, and Co. Witness had conducted a sale at £6,500 of Mrs Love’s property to Macdonald,’ Wilson, and Co. on October 23.

Mr Myers: Did anyone instruct yon in regard to the agreement? vVitness: Mr Macdonald.

Do you remember how long it was before the sale took place that ho instructed you about tho agreement?— Only the day before.

Did you know at that time that any offer had been made by Macdonald, Wilson, and Co. to sell this property to the Crown? —No.

Or that the Crown had made any offer for any part of it?— No. Or that tho price agreed upon was £6,075? —No. _ The Committee then adjourned until eight o’clock this evening.