THURSDAY, AUGUST 18, 1910. THE MOKAU ESTATE

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 7209, 18 August 1910, Page 4

THURSDAY, AUGUST 18, 1910. THE MOKAU ESTATE

It seems to bo inevitable that everyone who happens to come directly or indirectly into the entanglement of ■which Mr Joshua Jones has been the woebegone centre for a generation past runs the risk of being - called a rascal- Mr Joshua .Jones lias been engaged in unprofitable litigation and the exposure of suspected duplicity for as long as many men can remember, and though he has apparently exhausted every known legal process in the effort to get possession of the famous " Mokau Estate” his resource in accusation remains unimpaired. Wo need not recall the names of the various people whom contact with the "Mokau leases” has corrupted, nor is it necessary to do more than bring to the memory of our readers that the words "fraud on the part of Jones” are to be found in tho judgment passed by one tribunal which investigated certain phases of the Mokau transactions. Just at this moment public attention rests upon a petition presented to Parliament by Mr Jones, asking that lie should be hoard at the Bar of the Hou.se, though for what purpose is not clear. In this document the evergreen charges of rascality reappear, and the Legislature is asked v to believe that the Chief Justice, ’die Chief Judge of tho Native Laud Court, tho Attorney-Genera], tho Registrar-General of tho Land Transfer Department, the legal firms of Findlay, Dalziell and Co., and Travers, Campbell, and Peacock have all acted in a more or less disgraceful way to defeat the ends of justice. Whether even for purposes of party politics there are individuals prepared to believe this sweeping indictment must be extremely doubtful, though it is, of course, conceivable that the charge may form the subject of solemn gossip in quarters where innuendo so often revels. Prom some of the accused persons it is impossible to expect re2>ly, but yesterday, in tho Legislative Council, the Attorney-General made answer to tho charge* levied against himself. The task can hardly have been a pleasant one, and Dr Findlay might easily have been excused if he had treated the calumnies of Dir Jones with contempt, but since there has been no inconsiderable amount of private discussion of the subject and a. portentous wagging of many heads during the last few weeks, ho probably acted wisely. And the statement Dr Findlay made will, we think, be accepted by the community as an exoneration of all those citizens and public servants who have been pilloried in the petition under, review. At any rate the alleged facts on which Mr Jones bases his charges are shown to be groundless, and the sinister suggestions they convey entitled to no credence either from Parliament or the public. If Mr Jones has grievances or claims why does he not take them before the Supreme Court? This seems a natural question, and the fact that no adequate answer can be found in the petition discounted its defamatory periods in advance of the At-torney-General’s rejoinder. Th© question of greatest importance in connection with this Mokau Estate is not, however, whether Mr Joshua Jones is rightfully bringing charges of fraud against half a dozen or more people—he has been doing this for years —but how much longer fifty thousand acres of land suitable for pastoral settlement is going to remain in a state of nature. The long drawn out Litigation in connection with this land has retarded the progress of settlement for years, since the area rests right across the path of development. There ar© many interests, of course, to consider *—■those of the native owners, tho purchasers of tho Jones leases, and the mortgagees, yet it seems to us that it would be a sensible step for th© Government to compusorilj' take over the block for settlement, buying out the natives,’ and sending the other people to the Courts for the assessment of whatever claims they may have, thus allowing Mr Jones another opportunity to obtain, "redress." This procedure would at least have the merit of at once settling a dispute that has been dragging on for years and allowing the land it concerns to be put to use. Against such a step it may bo urged that the Government might I>o involved in heavy expenditure, and that the interested parties can themselves invoke the Courts, and the land will eventually pass into occupation through the Native Land Board. This may possibly bo the view taken by the Ministry, but since charges of fraud are now being levied against one of his colleagues some statement will be looked for from the Prime Minister as to whether the Government proposes to take any action that will finally lead to the Mokau lands being utilised instead of being eternally squabbled about—or whether it is proposed to remain inactive and let the people concerned settle their own affairs in the way open to them at law.