THE MOKAU DEAL.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXI, Issue 97, 7 December 1911, Page 5

THE MOKAU DEAL.

ACCEPTANCE OF MR MASSEY’S CHALLENGE. SOME DEFINITE CHARGES., (Per Press Association.) Palmerston N., December G. Mr C. A. Loughnan, solicitor for the Mokau Company, writing in the Manawatu Daily Times, takes up Mr Massey’s challenge made at Parnell last night that there should be a deli nite charge regarding his attitude on the Mokau question Mr Loughnan writesbn,—l am not content to let the matter stand there and propose to leave Mr Massey no possible loophole of escape from my charges, which 1 specify as follows: (1) That the statement that the o(Li acres actually became Crown lands is untrue; (2) -that the statement that it was available for settlement is untrue • (3) that the statement that the fcnmCt sold toe 5021 acres to the company or to anyone else tor os 10d per acre or at any other puce is untrue; (4) that the often vepcated statement that speculators made £GU,000 profit out of the Mokau transaction is untrue'; (5) that the Government could have taken either the freehold or the leasehold of the Mokau Mohakatino block or any part ot it compulsorily, is untrue; (6) that the statement that the Government ought to have purchased the freehold and leasehold interests in the Mokau block, instead of allowing speculators to do so is untrue, inasmuch as the Government was advised by its responsible officers that it could not safely give more than £35,000 for the properties in question (see valuation attached to Mokau report), where the natives demanded £25,000 for the freehold and Mr Lewis £65,000 for the leasehold, making a total of £BO,OOO ; (7) that the statement that Mr Lewis’ leasehold interests in the property had been held to be bad is untrue; (8) that the statement that the difference between the price paid to tne Mam is foi the freehold and that paid by the company for both freehold and leasehold is all profit is untrue, and the proceeds from the untrue assumption that Mi Lewis’ leasehold interests m the pi operty were valueless, it having been established and sworn to by Mr J om.s it the Mokau enquiry that he 'had been offered £1.00,000 for theso veiy leaseholds by a London syndicate, (J) that Mr Massey’s original statement to the effect that a second Order-in-Coun-cil authorising the Mokau Company or syndicate to purchase another native block of 170,000 acres was untrtio and supported by no foundation in fact whatever; (10) that the suppression by Mr Massey in his Palmerston North speech of the date upon which the Order-in-Council was agreed to bo granted by the Cabinet was misleading and calculated to give the public the impression that the gazetting of the order in the following March was the result of Mr McNab having joined the comnany as chairman in the inteival I don’t know what particular facts the Hawke’s Bay gentlemen were referring to when they expressed then opinion that Mr Massey’s statements were a disgrace to party polities, hut 1 do sav that the above are the circumstances I relied upon when I endorsed that, opinion in my letter ol this morning, and Mr Massey can take what change he can get out of that.— (Signed)—C. A. LOLGHNAN.

MR McNAB AND MR MASSEY. Palmerston N., December 6. Mr McNab addressed a packed and enthusiastic meeting here to-night, and referred further to the Moknu matter and his challenge to Mr. Massey in that regard. H© repeated that Mr Massey, in stating that the Order-m-Council had not been granted until March, and that he (Mr McNab) joined the company in January,, at the same time suppressing _the_ fact that the resolution for the issuing of the Order-in-Council had been passed in December, that he (Mr Massey) had been guilty of more than not being frank—lie had been dishonest. Mr Massey had, in replying to the letter from the Hawke’s Bay shareholders, asked that the men who signed the letter should say where ho had told falsehoods. He would enumerate those (to use Mr Massey’s own words) “falsehoods” as follows:—(1) The statement that the 5021 acres were up to a few months ago the property of the Dominion ; (2) that those lands had been sold by the Government privately; (8) that the land had been handed over to the company for 5s lOd per acre.