MOKAU AGAIN.

Colonist, Volume LIV, Issue 13286, 11 December 1911, Page 4

MOKAU AGAIN.

MH. LOUGHNAN REPLIES TO MR. MASSEY.

[Ukited Press Association.]

Palmerstcn North, Dec 6

Mr. C. A. Loughnan, solicitor for the. Mofcau Company, writing to the "Manasvatu Daily Times," takes, up Mr. Massey's challenge made at Parnoil last night that there should be a definite charge regarding his ntftit)ud© on -Jlokau. 31r. iLouyhnan says :— I am not content to let the matter stand there, and propose to leave Mr Massey no possible loopho.e to escape from my charges, which I specify as follows:— (1) That the statement that the /)021 acres actually became Crown lands is untrue. (2) That the statement that it was available foi settlement is untrue. (3) That tho statement that the Government sold tho 5021 acres to the company or to anyone else for os lOd per aero, or at any other price is untrue. (4) That the often repeated statement that speculators made £00,000 profit otifc of the Mokau transaction is untrue. (5) 1 hat tho statement that tho Government could have taken either the freehold or the leasehold of the Mokau-Mohakitiiia block, or any part of it, ccinpulsorily is untrue. (6) That the statement that tlir Government ought to have purchased tho 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 I that- 't could not safely give more than £30,000 for tho properties in question (see valuation attached to Mokau report), whereas tho Natives demanded £25,000 for the freehold ' and Mr. Lewis £55,000 for the leasehold, mitking a total of £80,000. (7) Tlvit the statement that Mr. Louis' leasehold interests in the property had been held to be had is untrue, # (S) That tho statement that the difference between the price paid to the Maoris for the freehold and that paid by the company for both freehold and leasehold is all profit is tini true, and proceeds from the untrue ;f.r-iimj!tion thit Mr Lewis' leasehold interests in the property were valueless, it having been established and sworn 'o by Mr Jones at the Mokau inquiry that he had been oiFcrrcl ' UOO for those very leaseholds by a London syndicate. (9) Tlisit Mr. Massr-y's original statement to the effect that a second Order-in-Council authorising the Mokau Company or syndicate to purchase another Native'block of 17.000 acres w«\s untrue, and'supplemented by no fc'iindntion in fact whatever. (1(1) That the surprofKion by Mr Massey in his Palmerston 'North speech of the date upon which the Orde-r-in-Council was a^rned to be granted by the Cabinet was misleading and calculated to give the public the impression that the of the Order-in-Council in the following March was the result of Mr. McNab having joined the company as chairman in the interval. I don't know what particular facts

the Ha^ke's Bay gontlemen were 10----ferring to when they expressed their opinion that Mr Massey's statements wore "a disgrace to party politics," but I Co say that the above are tho circumstances I relied upon when I endorsed that opinion in my letter of this morning; und Mr. Masscy can take what change he can got out of that.

C. A. LOUGHNAN