THE MOKAU JONES' CASE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXV, Issue 9141, 24 August 1888, Page 6

THE MOKAU JONES' CASE.

REPORT OP THE COMMISSION. [Br TELEGRAPH,—SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT. ] ' Wellington, Thursday. The report of the Mokau Jones' Commission was laid upon the , table of the House to-day.,. As so many aspersions during the controversy have been cast upon the Chief Judge of the Native Lands Court, Government officials, and Government itself, I deem it but just to all parties to send a fall precis of it. The report shows that the Mokau Mahokatino No. 1 block, some 56,500 acres, passed through the Native Land Court at Waitara on the 23rd of June, 1882, a provisional order of ownership being given to Wetere Te Rerenga and ninety-nine others. Under this order the land is still held, no certificate 1 of title having as yet been issued, the completion of title having been delayed for six years for want of a survey. An apS roved plan has now been lodged with the Court, and subject to suoh objections as may be lodged, there seems no reason why a final certificate of title should not issue at an early date. The land in Jones' lease is about 28,000 acres, and the lease is signed by 81 out of 100 owners, and purports to be an absolute lease for 56 years, with right to mine, cut timber, etc. The Commission regard the statements of the natives generally given in evidence as unreliable, and in some cases as directly opposed to that which they had previously given in 1887. For the purpose of the inquiry, they hold the lease was understood by the natives according to its actual purport and effect. There appears to be no doubt that in the ordinary course, after the land had passed the Native Land Court, it would have rested with the persons interested to get the survey made without the interference of Government. Had this course been followed in the present instance, and had Mr. Tole been allowed to proceed with the survey in 1882, there is reason to believe that all that was required would have been effeoted without difficulty or delay. After narrating the dispute between the Survey Department and Mr. Jones, the Commissioners state: —"It is undoubtedly the fact that after long dispute the eastern boundary has now been surveyed in accordance with the line so persistently contended for by Mr. Jones." With reference to this Mr. Humphries explains that his action was the result of a consultation be- ; tween the Chief Judge of the Native Land Court and the Assistant Sur-veyor-General, and produces his written instructions to that effect. On this the Commissioners observe that: "It must be presumed that the Chief Judge and Assistant Surveyor-General were influenced in their decision by information furnished to them by the Survey Department at New Plymouth, an officer of that department having been sent to Auckland expressly to afford such information." The truth appears to be, and it is in accordance with the strange fatality which seems to have attended every step in this business, that the Survey Department was misled by a topographical map of the district. In connection with the question about the eastern boundary, it is of a piece with almost everything else in connection with this business —that the plan on which the original order of the Court was based, and which was exhibited for that purpose in the Court at Waitara, has been lost, and is alleged to have been stolen from the Post Office at Auckland. The Commissioners state that they have no material for making a comparison between the manner in which these applications were dealt with, and that in which similar applications by other persons have been treated. The chief difficulty throughout has been the want of a survey. They do not think that the persons interested in the lease have sustained any actual injury through the passing of the Native Land Administration Act of 1886. It is pointed out that Mr. Jones originally entered, into these negotiations with the sanction and encouragement of the Government of the day, as expressed in a letter from Mr. Sheehan, and that his services at that time in assisting to open up the Mokau district were regarded as worthy of special acknowledgment. He has now been upwards of twelve years engaged in these negotiations, and has certainly, so far as the Commissioners can see, done everything possible on his part to bring them to a successful termination. The special difficulties which Mr. Jones has had to contend with outside those ordinarily attendant on transactions of the like nature, may be stated as follows: — (1) The stoppage by the Government of the surveys in 1882 ; (2) the action taken by Captain Messenger, and its effect in impeding the completion of the title; (3) the passing of the Native Lands Alienation Restriction Act of 1884 ; (4) the ambiguity of the terms of the original order of the Court, and the special difficulties which it developed in connection with the erroc in the topographical map ; (5) the action of the Native Lands Court at Otorohanga, in October, 1886, in unsettling the boundaries and ownership of a large portion of the Mokau Mohakatino No. 1 Block ; (6) the doubt, whether well founded or otherwise, cast upon Mr. Jones' position by the passing of the Native Lands Administration Act, 1886, and by the telegram of the Chief Judge reerring thereto. Except as aforesaid, and except as to any unascertained effect which the telegram of Chief Judge Macdonald to Wetere Te Rerenga, may have produced on the minds of the natives, we cannot identify any Act of the Legislature, or of the Government, or any proper action, mistake, or neglect of any officer thereof, as having prevented or materially hindered Mr. Jones from completing his title. In so saying it must be understood that -the commissioners do not assume to review the judicial acts or decisions of the Native Lands Court. Considering the exceptional nature and circumstances of the case the said Joshua Jones is in our opinion entitled to any assistance which the Legislature can accord, having regard to just rights and the interest of the natives, but- on account of the difficulty of the case we consider that any suggestion as to the specific form which such assistance should take must proceed from Mr. Jones himself, or his legal advisers. In reply to questions submitted to the commissioners, they report that there is no positive evidence that any of the native owners of the block were prevented from signing the lease to Jones by reason of the Native Lands Alienation Restriction Act of 1884 ; but there is evidence (and it may be taken as a natural inference) that in consequence of the passing of the Act all further attempts to obtain signatures were at that time abandoned. There is a consensus of evidence that a survey could have been effected at the close of 1882, had it not been for the action of the Hon. Mr. Bryce, the Native Minister, in stopping it. Mr. Jones has undoubtedly sustained serious loss and injury through his inability to make good his title, but the commissioners are unable to form any pecuniary estimate thereof."