THE GRAFT CHARGES.

Oamaru Mail, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 10608, 10 November 1910, Page 4

THE GRAFT CHARGES.

(Piai PjUAS AbSOCIAIION.)

"Wellington 5 November 10. The Hme - Committee resumed the Kaili.iu charges this morning. air Kensington, continuing his evi deuce, said he had written to the Chiet Surveyor saying that Mr Duncan, ar Auckland valuer, Jiad. been authonsec ta mate the valuation or Te Akau No 2 Block ot 13,000 acres, which "the Gov eminent had agreed, to .acquire; at not less than £2 per awe. The minimum price was not -decided on on account of ill© deed iu which Mr Kaihau was to receive 10-'peu coat, if the propcrtj loahsed noteless than £2 per acre, but MriDuncan was. advised of so that lie could, allocate the value of the dift'eient parts of the block to average £2 per ""acre over the whole. Air Mjers proceeded to ask witness a number of questions re these instructions as. to price. Mr Skerrett objected, saying that Mr Myers' questions amounted to insinuations against the Department. The Chairman, Mr Hanan, upheld Mr Skerrett's objection. Witness had given definite instructions that the Act must he ;adhered to, and consequently payments were made to the vendors direct.

Mr Skerrett referred to Mr Myers having spent an hour questioning Mr Kensington about the one-phrase "at not less than £2 per acre." Replving to Mr Skeiftett, witness said there were frequent articles in the New Zealand Herald urging the Government' to acquire the Te Akau. 'Block. Replying to Sir J. G. Ward, witness said Mr Seddon had never mentioned Mr Kaib.au. to witness in connection with the acquirement of the Te Akau Block. No payment had ever.been made to a member of Parliament by. the Department in connection with the acquirement of native land. -Mr Carroll told witness to be carefulnpt to make payments to anyone except vendors. Replying to Mr Massey, witness said ho had heard that the Native Appellate Court had practically changed the ownership ot the land. He did not know whether Brown was the. original native land purchase officer who tried unsuccessfulh to acquire tho block, but ho understood that Brown later was > appoint! d nidge, and sat as a member of the Appellate Court which decided ownership. Ho did not know, that Mr Kaihau took an active part in tkeiHouse in having the Appellate Court set. up to decide the ownership of tho block, or that the unsuccessful party in the- appeal comprised thoso who had objected to Mr Kaihau appearing m the negotiations.

E- C. ; Bloomfiekl, cf Auckland,. solicitor for Kaihau and Ngat&hinga tribe, said he was instructed in 1906 by some of the tribe and Kaihau "to ; make a rough agreement lotuecn them >oi work which Kaihau hid done bcioic the- Native Court connected with Je Akau Block. In this Kaihau agiccd to arrange the sale to the Cioun, conduct the caso before the Appeal Court, and pay all fees, conditional on icceiving 10 per cent oif amount realised by the sale to the Grown. The price was £2 per acre. Kaihau was described in the agreement as a uative commission agent. Mr. Kensington! told witness Kaihau would be unrecognised in the matter. Witness advised Kaihau to wait till the money was paid to the natives and then collect. Kaihau did so. Witness was told,by the natives that they made of their own will pavments to Kaihau of about. £2OOO. ' .„ Tb«=. Committee adjourned till to-, morrow.