WEST COAST SETTLEMENT RESERVES (NORTH ISLAND) COMMISSION (REPORT ON), TOGETHER WITH MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS AND EVIDENCE.

Appendix to the Journals of the House of Representatives, 1912 Session II, G-02

G.—2.

Session 11. 1912. NEW ZE A L AND.

WEST COAST SETTLEMENT RESERVES (NORTH ISLAND) COMMISSION (REPORT ON), TOGETHER WITH MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS AND EVIDENCE.

Presented to both Houses of the General Assembly by Command of His Excellency

COMMISSI O N .

Islington, Governor. To all to whom these presents shall come, and to Alexander McArthur, Esq., of Wellington, Master of Arts, Doctor of Laws, Stipendiary Magistrate ; and to William Kerr, Esquire, of Wanganui, Stipendiary Magistrate : Greeting. Whereas the lessees of lands held under the provisions of the West Coast Settlement Reserves Act, 1881, and its amendments, are desirous of surrendering their present leases and obtaining in lieu thereof leases under section eight of the West Coast Settlement Reserves Act, 1892 : And whereas some of the said lessees allege that they have been misled by the form of the lease or the conduct of the Public Trustee into supposing that the compensation payable in respect of the improvements on their leases was not limited to the sum of five pounds (£5) for every acre thereof, and acting on that supposition made or purchased improvements in excess of that limit: And whereas the Native owners of the lands included in the said leases allege that such lands will be required for their own use and occupation on the expiration of the said leases, and have requested that the desire of the present lessees to obtain permission to surrender their leases and obtain fresh leases under the West Coast Settlement Reserves Act, 1892, shall not be granted : And whereas it is expedient that full inquiry should be made into the several matters hereinafter mentioned : Now, therefore, I, John Poynder Dickson-Poynder, Baron Islington, Privy Councillor, Knight Commander of the Most Distinguished Order of Saint Michael and Saint George, Companion of the Distinguished Service Order, the Governor of the Dominion of New Zealand, in pursuance and exercise of every power and authority enabling me in this behalf, and acting by and with the advice and consent of the Executive Council of the said Dominion, do hereby appoint you, the said Alexander McArthur and William Kerr, to be Commissioners for the purpose of inquiring into the several matters and things hereinafter mentioned and referred to, that is to say : — 1. On what terms and conditions the said lessees or any of them should be permitted to surrender their present leases and obtain new leases in lieu thereof under section eight of the West Coast Settlement Reserves Act, 1892.

l—(i. 2.

G.—2

2

2. Whether any of the said lessees have been misled by any act of the Public Trustee or any other officer of the Public Trust Department, or the form of the lease issued, or the regulations made under the West Coast Settlement Reserves Act, 1881, or its amendments, into believing that there was no limit to the amount of the compensation to which they were entitled under their leases, and in consequence of such belief made on their leaseholds or purchased from other lessees improvements in excess of five pounds (£5) per acre. 3. What areas of land now leased under the West Coast Settlement Eeserves Act, 1881, and its amendments, may hereafter be required by the Native owners for their use and occupation ; and, having regard to their particular interests therein and their individual fitness for profitably using such lands, which of the said leases, if any, should be allowed to remain under the present tenure in order that such Native owners may, on the expiration of such leases, compete for the possession of the lands held under them. 4. What provisions should be made to enable such Native owners to get : financial assistance from the Government to enable them to work their farms, should any of them become tenants of such leaseholds. And you are hereby directed to inquire into the several matters aforesaid at such place or places in the Dominion as you may think fit, by all lawful ways and means, subject to the terms of these presents. And, with the like advice and consent, I do further appoint you the said Alexander McArthur to be Chairman of the said Commission. And for the purpose of such inquiry you are hereby empowered to summon and have before you, and examine on oath or otherwise as may be allowed by law, ail witnesses or other persons whom you may judge capable of affording you any information upon or in respect of the several matters of inquiry hereinbefore mentioned, or any matter or thing arising thereout or connected therewith. And also to have before you and examine any books, writings, records, or documents whatsoever which you shall deem necessary for your information in the premises. And I do also require you, not later than the twenty-ninth day of June, one thousand nine hundred and twelve, or as much sooner as the same can conveniently be done (using all diligence), to report to me under your hands and seals your proceedings herein and your opinion touching the several premises. And I do further declare that this Commission shall continue in full force and virtue, and that subject to these presents you the said Commissioners shall and may from time to time proceed in the subject-matters thereof as you shall judge expedient, and that your powers and functions hereunder shall continue in full force notwithstanding that the inquiry hereby directed may not be formally adjourned. And, lastly, it is declared these presents are subject to the provisions of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, ]j9OB. Given under the hand of His Excellency the Right Honourable John Poynder Dickson-Poynder, Baron Islington, Privy Councillor, Knight Commander of the Most Distinguished Order of Saint Michael and Saint George, Companion of the Distinguished Service Order, and issued under the Seal of the said Dominion at Wellington, this sixth day of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and twelve. W. D. S. Mac Donald, Native Minister. Approved in Council. J. F. Andrews, Clerk of the Executive Council,

Gk—2.

EEPOET.

To His Excellency the Eight Honourable John Poynder Dickson-Poynder, Baron Islington, Privy Councillor, Knight Commander ol the Most Distinguished Order of Saint Michael and Saint George, Companion of the Distinguished Service Order, the Governor of the Dominion of New Zealand. May it please Your Excellency,— We, the Commissioners appointed by Your Excellency's Letters Patent of the 6th day of April, 1912, to inquire into the several matters and things hereinafter mentioned and referred to, that is to say,— 1. On what terms and conditions the lessees of lands held under the provisions of the West Coast Settlement Reserves Act and its amendments, or any of them, should be permitted to surrendei their present leases and obtain new leases in lieu thereof under section 8 of the West Coast Settlement Reserves Act, 1892. 2. Whether any of the said lessees have been misled by any act of the Public Trustee or any other officer of the Public Trust Department, or the form of the lease issued, or the regulations made under the West Coast Settlement Reserves Act, 1881, or its amendments, into believing that there was no limit to the amount of the compensation to which they were entitled under their leases, and in consequence of such belief made on their leaseholds or purchased from other lessees improvements in excess of five pounds (£5) per acre. 3. What areas of land now leased under the West Coast SettlementReserves Act, 1881, and its amendments, may hereafter be required by the Native owners for their use and occupation ; and, having regard to their particular interests therein and their individual fitness for profitably using such lands, which of the said leases, if any, should be allowed to remain under the present tenure in order that such Native owners may, on the expiration of such leases, compete for the possession of the lands held under them. 4. What provisions should be made to enable such Native owners to get financial assistance from the Government to enable them to work their farms, should any of them become tenants of such leaseholds,— have now the honour to report to Your Excellency as follows :— The scope of our inquiry necessitated our visiting Hawera, Opunake, and New Plymouth. The inquiry was held in the Courthouses of these townships, and the Press and public were admitted to the sittings of the Commission, the arrangements having been advertised in the local newspapers. A few of the lessees appeared in person, and forty-four were represented by Mr. R. D. Welsh, of Hawera. Mr. W. H. D. Bell, M.P., of Wellington, appeared for all the Native owners. We began our sittings on the 10th day of May, when Mr. Welsh opened by stating the case on behalf of the lessees, and called evidence in their support. At the conclusion of this evidence, Mr. Bell opened the case for the Native owners, called his evidence, and summed up. He was followed by Mr. Welsh in reply. The hearing was concluded on the 4th day of June. A considerable amount of evidence was called, and we feel it is only our duty to commend both counsel on the able and amicable manner in which they represented their respective clients. Their keen appreciation of the points at issue materially assisted us in our consideration of the matters intrusted to our inquiry, as also did the production of documents by the Under-Secretary for Native Affairs and the District Manager for the Public Trust. The Public Trustee also visited Hawera, and made a statement in reference to the attitude of the lessees and the position of the Native owners.

3

G.—2.

It appears from the evidence of some of the Native owners that they regard the right of competing for the leases when falling in as only one step towards the wresting of the fee-simple from the hands of the Public Trustee, and that thus they might become the absolute owners. It is true that Mr. Bell stated that the large majority of the Native owners clearly understood that the Commission could not entertain any such idea. We must emphatically point out to the Native owners that the Commission must confine itself to the scope of the inquiry. The reserves are now under the administration of the Public Trustee, acting in conjunction with the Native owners, and the administration must be carried out as a provision for the welfare of the Native owners (the cestui que trusts) and their descendants. The Commissioners cannot go beyond the scope of their inquiry, and desire to express their entire want of sympathy with any use of them as a means to a further end. Legislation. The confiscated lands were taken under the New Zealand Settlements Act, 1863, an Act passed to enable the Governor to establish settlements for colonization in the Northern Island of New Zealand. The preamble to the Act discloses the necessity for its enactment, and has special reference to the disturbances that had taken place shortly before the year 1863. The Act empowers the Governor to proclaim certain districts within which he may set apart sites and take land for settlements. Compensation was to be granted to all persons who had any title, interest, or claim to any land taken under the Act, with the exception of such persons as are defined in the various subclauses of section 5 and in section 6. In 1879 the Confiscated Lands Inquiry and Maori Prisoners' Trials Act was passed. The preamble to that Act, as far as it concerns the scope of our inquiry, is as follows :— " Whereas under the provisions of an Act of the General Assembly heretofore in force called the New Zealand Settlements Act, 1863, and of the Acts amending the same, certain lands belonging to aboriginal Natives on the west coast of the North Island have been taken : And whereas some of such lands have been sold and disposed of, and other part thereof remains in the possession of the Crown: And whereas it hath been alleged by or on behalf of some of the said Natives that promises have been made by or on behalf of the Government of the colony in relation to the lands so taken, and that such promises have not been fulfilled : And whereas the said Natives have been for some time past and now are in a state of discontent, and disturbances of the public peace and other- offences have lately been committed by certain of such Natives : And whereas it is alleged that such discontent may be removed by inquiry being made into the said alleged promises and grievances, and it is expedient that a Commission should be appointed for such purpose." The Act empowered the Governor to appoint Commissioners to inquire into Native grievances in connection with land on the west coast of the North Island, and defined the powers of the Commissioners. A Commission was appointed under this Act, of which the members were Sir William Fox and Sir Francis Dillon Bell, and they reported to the Governor in the following year, 1880. In consequence of the reports made by these Commissioners, the West Coast Settlement (North Island) Act, 1880, was passed. By section 3 of this Act the Governor was empowered to make a final settlement of every claim or grievance of any nature arising out of any award, promise, or engagement, howsoever made, by or on behalf of the Government of the colony, in respect of land situate within the confiscated territory, and in so far as it may be expedient, to do so in accordance with the said reports, and to issue Crown grants in fulfilment of such awards, promises, and engagements. Section 4 empowered the Governor to make and set apart reserves for Natives within the confiscated territory, to be inalienable by sale, lease, or other disposition, and to issue Crown grants for the same, subject to such terms, conditions, and limitations as he might think fit; also to make and set apart reserves for the benefit of the Natives, to be inalienable except according to an Act of Parliament to be thereafter passed. In the following year the West Coast Settlement Reserves Act, 1881, was passed. This Act was in supplement of the Act of 1880 just referred to, and was to provide

4

Gk—2.

for the administration of reserves made for Natives within the confiscated territory. The reserves were to be managed under this Act, and no alienable reserves were to ~he alienated except through the Public Trustee, with a view to the benefit of the Natives and the promotion of settlement. Section 8 says, "It shall be the duty of such Trustee, so far as conveniently may be, in the exercise of the powers given him under this Act, to consult and obtain the assistance of some Native or Natives who shall be best acquainted with the circumstances of any reserve which is being dealt with, and to act, as far as possible, in accordance with the wishes of the Natives interested in such reserve." Section 11 defines the powers of the Trustee to lease for agricultural purposes not exceeding twenty-one years, and for building purposes not exceeding forty-two years. Further, it enacts that no person may hold of suburban land more than 40 acres, and of rural land more than 640 acres. Every lease was to be disposed of by public tender, and the rent was to be the best improved rent obtainable at the time. The next stage in the legislation was the regulations dated 13th February, 1883. These were made in pursuance and exercise of the power conferred upon the Governor by the Act just referred to. They provide how the first leases are to be disposed of ; the limits of area for each lessee ; as to preparation, cost, execution, and registration of leases ; as to term, payment of rent and taxes ; as to transfers, subleases, and sales by mortgagees, &c. ; as to surrenders ; as to taking for public purposes or resumption of lands leased ; as to occupation and improvements ; as to arbitration, and miscellaneous. Then follows the schedules to the regulations, which include in the Fourth Schedule the memorandum of lease. Your Commissioners desire to draw special attention to the following words in the memorandum of lease, inasmuch as these words should have called the attention of a fairly careful man to the contract into which he was entering, and must at least have required him to look at the regulations. The words referred to are contained in the last paragraph of page 13 of the regulations, beginning on the sixth line from the bottom. They are as follows : " Which shall be deemed to be substantial improvements under the regulations made under the said Act." The lessee then, having been put on his inquiry, could not have missed seeing Regulation 30, as follows : " Improvements to be suitable to and consistent with the extent and character of the holdings, and none shall be allowed for in any valuation in excess of five pounds for every acre of rural land, or ten poimds for every acre of suburban land." We next come to the West Coast Settlement Reserves Act 1881 Amendment Act, 1883, passed on the Bth September. This Act (section 8) extended the leases to thirty years, and empowered the Governor to grant compensation for improvements. It must be noticed that no such power had formerly been authorized, although included in the regulations of the 13th February, 1883. Surely such a regulation was ultra vires. The lessees now knew that they had their leases extended for thirty years, and must also have known that they had compensation for improvements up to £5 per acre. The West Coast Settlement Reserves Act 1881 Amendment Act, 1884, may be passed over as having no bearing on the inquiry to be made by the Commission. In 1887 a reduction of rent was made under the authority of an Order in Council which was gazetted on the 25th October, 1887 (New Zealand Gazette, 1887, page 1368). The interest on rent in arrear was reduced from 15 per cent, to 5 per cent. This Order in Council was not validated until the Act of 1892. So far as the evidence shows, not one of the lessees failed to make the necessary statutory declaration in order to get a reduction in rent. We now come to the West Coast Settlement Reserves Act, 1892. This Act repeals the Act of 1881 of the same name and its amendments of 1884, 1885, and 1887. Under section 6 of this Act the Public Trustee was empowered to grant perpetual leases of vacant reserves, and section 7 validated leases heretofore granted by the Public Trustee (other than those granted pursuant to awards), and all reductions of rent heretofore made by the Public Trustee. By section 8 lessees under lease granted by the Public Trustee (other than those granted pursuant to awards) and under confirmed leases could obtain new leases in lieu thereof, subject to conditions. The lessee-was, within twelve months from the Ist November, 1892, to surrender his lease, and to notify the Public Trustee that he desired to obtain

5

G.—2.

a new lease under the provisions of the section. If the lessee converted under the Act of 1892 he got a perpetual right of renewal, and he also got compensation for all improvements up to £5 per acre. On the other hand, the Native owner lost his right to bid at the end of the term of the lease, and also the benefit of the best improved rent obtainable at that time. If the lessee made his application, and afterwards considered that conversion would not benefit him, he was allowed to withdraw his application. The Amendment Act, 1893, calls for attention in one point only—that is, as to the definition to be given to " improvements " and " substantial improvements." Section 3 says that they shall have the same meaning as " substantial improvements of a permanent character " in the Land Act, 1892, which reads as follows : " ' Substantial improvements of a permanent character ' mean and include reclamation from swamps, clearing of bush, gorse, broom, sweet-briar, or scrub, cultivation, planting with trees or live hedges, the laying-out and cultivating of gardens, fencing, draining, making roads, sinking wells or water-tanks, constructing water-races. sheep-dips, making embankments or protective works of any kind, in any way improving the character or fertility of the soil, or the erection of any building." This, in truth, was a great concession to the lessees. In 1895 the Native Reserves Act Amendment Act was passed, wherein at section 10 it states, "The West Coast Settlement Reserves Act, 1892, is hereby amended by substituting the words ' four years ' for the words ' twelve months ' where the same occur in paragraph (Jc) of subsection three of section eight." The effect of this was to give the lessees a second chance to convert up to the 31st October, 1896. The lessees thus gained an additional year in which to consider whether they would convert or not. The last chance given to the lessees was in section 20 of the Reserves, Endowments, and Crown and Native Lands Exchange, Sale, Disposal, and Enabling Act, 1898, wherein it was " declared that in the case of a lease validated by section seven of that Act, and in force when this Act comes into operation, the lessee shall be entitled to take advantage of the aforesaid section eight at any time within two years after the coming into operation of this Act." This gave the lessees a further opportunity to convert from the sth November, 1898, to the 4th November, 1900. The proviso in this section states that in any lease granted after the coming into operation of section 8 of the Act of 1892 the term of the lease shall commence on the 26th day of September, 1896, and the rent reserved shall be payable as from that date. The effect of this proviso was that the rent was not to be 5 per cent, on the value at the time the lessee converted, but 5 per cent, on a value as at September, 1896. The last of the Acts which we think it necessary to consider is the Native Land Claims Adjustment Act, 1910, where at section 4 it is enacted that "In the case of every lease and of every renewal thereof granted under the West Coast Settlement Reserves Act, 1881, or any amendment thereof, passed before the year 1892, the improvements to be valued by arbitration in pursuance of the covenants contained in the lease, instead of being limited in character, as provided by the lease and by the regulations under the said Act, shall be and be deemed to be all the substantial improvements of a permanent character as defined by section two of the Land Act, 1908, which are in existence on the land at the time of the valuation, up to the value of five pounds for every acre of the land included in the lease." This section was passed in order to meet the decision given in Tinkler's case in the preceding year. In the whole of this legislation two facts stand prominently out. The first is, that every legislative measure has been in favour of the lessees ; and the second, that on no occasion has the Native owner been consulted in reference to any fresh legislation. Some of the leading provisions of the Act of 1881 and its subsequent amendments, including section 8 previously quoted by us, have been fully considered by the Court of Appeal in the case of Te Moauaroa and Others v. The Public Trustee and Another (10 N.Z.L.R., p. 281), and from the judgment of Williams, J., concurred in by Prendergast, C.J., we cite the following extracts : — (Page 296): " Section sof the Act of 1884 directs that the powers of leasing conferred upon him (the Public Trustee) are to be exercised ' in such manner as he shall think fit, with a view to the benefit of the Natives to whom such reserves belong

6

7

G.—2

and to the promotion, of settlement.' The 7th section of the Act of 1884, though it in terms refers only to the West Coast Settlement Keserves Trustee in carrying out the routine business, mentioned in the unrepealed part of section 8 of the West Coast Settlement Reserves Act, 1881, seems to indicate a general intention that the Natives interested are themselves to be consulted, and their wishes, if possible, given effect to." (Page 297) : " The Trustee, however, clearly has the right to say that he will not enter into any negotiations for surrender at all unless he is satisfied that there is a reasonable prospect that the acceptance of a surrender will benefit his cestui que trusts. ,, (Page 298) : " The consequence of holding that the meaning which is prima facie to be applied to that word [' may '] did not apply would be to decide that the Legislature intended to compel a trustee to sacrifice the interests of his cestui que trusts at the instance of a party with whom he had contracted on their behalf, and to confiscate, for the benefit of a lessee, that to which the lessor by the terms of the contract of the lease was entitled. In order to deprive persons of rights to which they have become entitled by contract, the clearest indication of intention on the part of the Legislature is necessary. . . . By the implied terms of the original lease, the improvements, in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, would at the expiration of the term become the property of the lessor. This, of course, was known to the lessees when they made their bargain for the lease, and the rent and other terms of the lease would be adjusted upon this basis. There is no. suggestion that the parties in making the original bargain were not on equal terms." (Page 299) : " I think that it would be the duty of the Trustee, before agreeing to accept a surrender and grant a new lease upon terms to be decided by arbitration under section 7, to consider whether there was a reasonable probability that the result of arbitration would be beneficial to the cestui que trusts ; find if he thought there was no such probability, that he should decline to enter into any such agreement, and that he is not compelled to enter into it, but was bound to exercise his discretion before doing so." In our opinion, the principles laid down by Mr. Justice Williams in the case cited, from which we have quoted extracts, seem to lay down that unless the Legislature has distinctly given authority to the contrary, both parties to the contract contained in the lease should be held to their bargain. It would be of advantage to the lessees to surrender their present leases and secure conversions ; but, at the same time, this would deprive the Native owners —the cestui que trusts —from the right of competing at the end of the term of the leases. To allow this, in our opinion, appears to be contrary both to law and equity. Both parties should be held to the bargain. Three opportunities have been given to the lessees to convert. Many have done so ; but several, for reasons best known to themselves, have notdone so, and now seek to obtain a further opportunity. To grant such an opportunity appears to us unfair to the Native owners—the cestui que trusts —who, we consider, ought to have a chance at the termination of the leases of competing for a renewal. The evidence discloses, and it is an admitted fact, that since the deaths of Tohu and Te Whiti their teachings have been steadily losing hold on the Natives, a considerable number of whom are now turning their attention to dairy-farming. As the Act seems very clear that the wishes of the Natives interested in the reserves must be consulted, it is only just that, although they may not take advantage of the right to compete, they should not be deprived of that right by changing the tenure in favour of the lessees. We cannot find in the legislation dealing with these reserves any indication of the intention to deprive the Native owners —the cestui que trusts —of the benefit of the improvements effected on the leased reserves in excess of the £5 per acre. The only chance they have of getting into occupation of the leaseholds is by being allowed to compete when the leases fall in, and, if successful, by paying the outgoing lessees for the improvements up to the limit of £5 per acre. Findings. After careful inquiry into the several matters and things referred to us by Your Excellency's Commission, we submit the following as the result of a careful consideration of the evidence given before us : — 1. Taking the first inquiry into the terms and conditions on which the lessees, or any of them, should be permitted to surrender their present leases and obtain new

a.—2.

leases in lieu thereof under section 8 of the West Coast Settlement Reserves Act, 1892, we are of opinion that none of the lessees should be allowed to surrender their leases. Three opportunities have been granted them of surrendering their leases, and they have not availed themselves of such opportunities. True it is that some did not acquire the leases until some of these opportunities had expired. In a few but important cases on recent transfers all the opportunities had expired ; but the transferees—that is, the present holders—knew well, or ought to have known, the conditions under which they took their transfers. The conditions have changed since the Act of 1892 was passed, and since—in 1898 —the last opportunity was given to the lessees of converting. These opportunities were certainly in the nature of a concession to the lessees, of which many did not avail themselves. The time of converting went by in 1900, and we think it is now too late to again offer them a. privilege or concession to which, under their leases, they had no claim as of right. To give them, by legislation, another opportunity of converting under the greatly altered conditions of the district and the circumstances of the Natives would now, in our opinion, apart from its disregarding the provision of the statute safeguarding the interests of the Native, be an interference with the inviolability of contract, a principle upon which the stability of contractual rights essentially depends. Mr. T. W. Fisher, who was Reserves Agent at New Plymouth, testified that notice was sent by registered letter in December, 1898, to all the lessees who had not converted, intimating that a further opportunity of converting had been given them. He also caused notices to be inserted in the local newspapers, and posters to be exhibited in conspicuous places at each post-office between Hawera and Opunake. Mr. Fisher also gave evidence that in 1898 the right of conversion was revived for the third time, owing to agitation on the part of the lessees. After the second opportunity had expired in 1896 the Deputy Public Trustee, Mr. Duncan, went through the district and saw the majority of the lessees between Pukekino and Waitotara. He. also addressed a meeting of the lessees at Hawera, when the question was brought forward again. How, then, can it be said that the lessees did not know of their right to convert ? 2. Proceeding to the second inquiry, as to whether any of the said lessees have been misled by any act of the Public Trustee or any other officer of the Public Trust Department into believing that there was no limit to the amount of the compensation to which they were entitled under their leases, and in consequence of such belief made on their leaseholds or purchased from other lessees improvements in excess of £5 per acre, we emphatically state that not a single witness on behalf of the lessees has been able to convince us that he was so misled. Considering, further, whether any one of the said lessees was misled by the form of the lease issued, or the regulations made under the West Coast Settlement Reserves Act, 1881, or its amendments, into the same belief, our answer is that the memorandum of lease put the lessees on their inquiry when it stated "All such buildings and fixtures . . . as shall be deemed to be substantial improvements under the regulations. ,. Surely this was a direct reference to the regulations. No. 32 of the regulations says, " The conditions set forth in the Act and these regulations as regards leases shail operate and shall be deemed to bind jbhe lessor and the lessee as fully and effectually as if they were set forth in every lease." Now, had there been anything to the disadvantage of the lessor, would he have been able to claim exemption on a similar ground as the lessee claims now ? We think not. The lessee's evident and justifiable answer would have been, " No, stick to the terms of the lease." Further, section 30 of the regulations says, " Improvements to be siiitable to and consistent with the extent and character of the buildings, and none shall be allowed for in any valuation in excess of £5 for every acre of rural land, or £10 for every acre of suburban land." In reference to this answer, we desire to call attention to the remarks of Mr. Justice Williams in the case of Te Moauaroa v. The Public Trustee (10 N.Z.L.R., p. 281), where the learned Judge says, at page 298, " There is no suggestion that the parties in making the original bargain were not on equal terms." Again, it was proved in evidence that on the plans originally issued the compensation for improvements was limited to £5. We are satisfied from what has come before us that all the lessees, with one or two exceptions, have effected very few improvements in excess of £5 per acre, and of these exceptions it was shown in evidence

8

9

G.—2

that most had exceeded the limit with a full knowledge of that limit. Further, many of them have subleased at greatly increased rents, enabling them to retire from active operations. We may reasonably assume that those who have not converted are doing well, and have reaped the full benefit of their contract of lease. 3. With regard to the third inquiry in the order of reference, when we consider the legal and equitable interests of the Native owners, and the evidence given as to their individual fitness for profitably using the leaseholds, we are of opinion that all the areas of land now leased under the West Coast Settlement Reserves Act, 1881, and its amendments, may hereafter be required by the Native owners for their use and occupation. Therefore, all the lands now held under the West Coast Settlement Reserves Act, 1881, or its amendments, should remain under the present tenure ; and this furnishes another reason, if such were needed, for refusing to give another opportunity for conversion. 4. We are asked in the fourth inquiry what provisions should be made to enable such Native owners to get financial assistance from the Government to enable them to work their farms, should any of them become tenants of such leaseholds. By virtue of subsection (8) of section 4 of the West Coast Settlement Reserves Act Amendment Act, 1893, the share, estate, or interest of Natives under leases of land forming part of the West Coast (North Island) Reserves is not (except so far as the Public Trustee is concerned) liable to be seized, sold, attached, or levied upon by any process whatever, or become vested in any Official Assignee or creditor's trustee in bankruptcy, or be subject to any law relating to bankruptcy or insolvency, or be assets in bankruptcy. So long as the law thus stands it is, of course, hopeless to expect that the Native can obtain any advance from private persons or lending companies. He must therefore look for help to the only legal entity against whom this statutory provision does not operate —namely, the Public Trustee—and accordingly section 18 of the Maori Land Laws Amendment Act, 1908, empowers the Public Trust Office Board to advance to any such lessee out of the Common Fund of the Public Trust Office, on the security of his interests in the lease, a sum not exceeding three-fifths of the value of such interest. As the acceptance or rejection of any security offered most necessarily depend upon its own circumstances, we cannot suggest any provision for enabling a Native lessee to obtain financial assistance other than that already provided by section 18 of the Act last quoted. The Public Trustee, in a memorandum dated the 11th December, 1909, states that the improvements would be a sufficient security for advances made by the Government if there were authority given to make such advances. We now respectfully return to Your Excellency the commission with which you honoured us, together with this report, the evidence, and minutes of proceedings. In witness whereof we have hereunto set our hands and seals, this twentyfourth day of June, one thousand nine hundred and twelve. A. MoARTHUR. WILLIAM KERR.

2—G. 2.

a.—2.

MINUTES OF PKOCEEDINGS-

Wanganui. Dr. MoAethur arrived in Wanganui, Wednesday, Bth May, 1912. Thursday, 9th May, 1912. An informal meeting was held by the Commissioners, at which preliminary matters were discussed and agreed upon. Hawbba. Friday, 10th May, 1912. The Commission sat at the Courthouse, Hawera, at 2 p.m. on Friday, the 10th May, 1912.1 Present: Dr. Alexander McArthur, S.M. (Chairman), and William Kerr, Esq., S.M., Commissioners. The secretary and official reporter, H. E. Le Grove, and W. Scon, Interpreter, were also in attendance. T. W. Fisher, Esq., Under-Secretary for Native Affairs, was also present. The commission was read in both the English and Maori languages. Mr. R. D. Welsh, solicitor, Hawera, appeared on behalf of forty-four of the lessees, and agreed to hand in a list of the names of such lessees. Mr. W. H. D. Bell, M.P., solicitor, Wellington, appeared on behalf of all the Native owners. Mr. Zachariah, District Manager for the Public Trust Office, was also in attendance to produce any documents the Commission may require. Mr. Welsh addressed the Commissioners and opened the case on behalf of the lessees, which was taken down by the reporter. At 4.30 o'clock the Commission adjourned till 10.30 a.m. next day. Saturday, 11th May, 1912. The Commission sat at 10.30 a.m. Present: Dr. McArthur, S.M., and William Kerr, Esq., S.M. Messrs. Fisher, Welsh, Bell, and Zachariah were also in attendance. Charles Andrews, farmer, Okato, was called by Mr. Welsh, and gave evidence on oath, being cross-examined by Mr. Bell and questioned by the Commissioners, the evidence being taken down by the reporter. At 12.30 p.m. the Commission adjourned till 10.30 a.m. on Monday, 13th May. Monday, 13th May, 1912. The Commission sat at 10.30 a.m. Present: Dr. McArthur, S.M., and William Kerr, Esq., S.M. Messrs. Fisher, Welsh, Bell, and Zachariah were also in attendance. The following witnesses were called by Mr. Welsh, and gave evidence on oath, being crossexamined by Mr. Bell and questioned by the Commissioners, the evidence being taken down by the reporter : Charles Andrews, recalled ; Joseph Best, farmer, Mangamingi; H. P. Best, farmer, Normanby ; A. Newell, farmer, Hawera ; Robert Palmer, farmer, Hawera ; William Kelly, farmer, Stratford ; E. R. Hastie, farmer, Kaupokonui. At 4.30 p.m. the Commission adjourned till 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 15th May, at Opunake. Opunake. Wednesday, 15th May, 1912. The Commission met at the Courthouse, Opunake, at 10.30 a.m. Present: Dr. McArthur, S.M., and William Kerr, Esq., S.M. Messrs. Welsh, Bell, and Zachariah were also in attendance. The following witnesses were called by Mr. Welsh, and gave evidence on oath, being crossexamined by Mr. Bell and questioned by the Commissioners, the evidence being taken down by the reporter : T. P. Hughson, storekeeper, Rahotu ; E. J. Dudley, farmer, Opunake ; J. Clarke, farmer, Okato. At 4 p.m. the Commission adjourned till 10.30 a.m. on Saturday, 18th May, at New Plymouth. New Plymouth. Saturday, 18th May, 1912. The Commission met at the Courthouse, New Plymouth, at 10.30 a.m. Present: Dr. McArthur, S.M., and William Kerr, Esq., S.M. Messrs. Bell and Zachariah wer ; also in attendance. J. J. Elwin, settler, came forward and gave evidence on oath, being examined by Mr. Bell and members of the Commission, the evidence being taken down by the reporter. At 12.30 p.m. the Commission adjourned till 10.30 a.m. on Monday. Monday, 20th May, 1912. The Commission sat at 10.30 a.m. Present: Dr. McArthur, S.M., and William Kerr, Esq., S.M. Messrs. Bell and Zachariah were also in attendance.

10

a.—2.

The following witnesses came forward and gave evidence on oath, being examined by Mr. Bell and the Commissioners, the evidence being taken down by the reporter : James Mackay, farmer, Fitzroy ; Henry Corbett, farmer, Wharea ; Joseph Anderson, settler, Stratford. The Commission adjourned till next day at 10.30 a.m. Tuesday, 21st May, 1912. The Commission sat at 10.30 a.m. Present: Dr. McArthur, S.M., and William Kerr, Esq., S.M. Messrs. Bell and Zachariah were also in attendance. . , W. L. Luscombe, farmer, New Plymouth, came forward and gave evidence, being examined by Mr. Bell and members of the Commission. The Commission adjourned till 2.30 p.m. next day, at Hawera. Hawera. Wednesday, 22nd May, 1912. The Commission met at the Courthouse, Hawera, at 2.30 p.m. Present: Dr. McArthur, S.M., and William Kerr, Esq., S.M. Messrs. Welsh, Bell, and Zachariah were also in attendance. The following witnesses were called by Mr. Welsh, and gave evidence on oath, being crossexamined by Mr. Bell and questioned by the Commissioners, the evidence being taken down by the reporter : J. W. Foreman, J.P., farmer, Tikorangi; C. H. Jury, farmer, Tikorangi; T. McKenzie, farmer, Tikorangi; George Petch, farmer, Waihi; F. W. Matthews, farmer, Tikorangi. At 4.30 p.m. the Commission adjourned till next day at 10.30 a.m. Thursday, 23rd May, 1912. The Commission sat at 10.30 a.m. Present: Dr. McArthur, S.M., and William Kerr, Esq., S.M. Messrs. Welsh, Bell, and Zachariah were also in attendance. Mr. Welsh called the following witnesses, who gave evidence on oath, being cross-examined by Mr. Bell and questioned by the Commissioners, the evidence being taken down by the reporter : Mrs. B. A. Mitchell, Manaia ; D. A. Poole, settler, Auroa ; G. A. Mehrtens, farmer, Otakeo ; H. P. Best, recalled. Mr. Welsh intimated that this was all the evidence he proposed to call, and closed his case on behalf of the lessees. At 4 p.m. the Commission adjourned till 10.30 a.m. next day. Friday, 24th May, 1912. The Commission sat at 10.30 a.m. Present: Dr. McArthur, S.M., and William Kerr, Esq., S.M. Messrs. Welsh, Bell, and Zachariah were also in attendance. Dr. Fitchett, Public Trustee, was also present. • Mr. Bell addressed the Commissioners at some length, and outlined the case on behalf of the Native owners. Dr. Fitchett made a statement to the Commission on behalf of the Public Trust Department. At 4 p.m. the Commission adjourned till next day at 10.30 a.m. Saturday, 25th May, 1912. The Commission sat at 10.30 a.m. Present: Dr. McArthur, S.M., and William Kerr, Esq., S.M. Messrs. Welsh, Bell, and Zachariah were also in attendance. Mr. Bell called Kahu Pukoro Tamati-o-Raukawa, who gave evidence on oath, being crossexamined by Mr. Welsh, the evidence being taken down by the reporter. The Commission adjourned till Monday, at 11 a.m. Monday, 27th May, 1912. The Commission met at 11 a.m. Present: Dr. McArthur, S.M., and William Kerr, Esq., S.M. Messrs. Welsh, Bell, and Zachariah were also in attendance. Mr. Bell called the following witnesses, who gave evidence on oath, and were cross-examined by Mr. Welsh, the evidence being taken down by the reporter : Kahu Pukoro (continued), Tuapatea Maumateo, Poitutu Warihi Remene, Pouwhareumu Toi, Inia Te Ngongohau, and Neha Kipa. At 4.30 o'clock the Commission adjourned till next day. Tuesday, 28th May, 1912. The Commission met at 10.30 a.m. Present: Dr. McArthur, S.M., and William Kerr, Esq., S.M. Messrs. Welsh, Bell, and Zachariah were also in attendance. Mr. Bell called the following witnesses, who gave evidence on oath, being cross-examined by Mr. Welsh, the evidence being taken down by the reporter : Himone Neha, Tamaka Awarua,_Rangitaura Kahui, Ranieri Karena, Manuarupe, Pahunga Tumarua, Kiri Apimareke, and Morere Whatitiri. At 4.30 o'clock the Commission adjourned till Thursday at 10.30 a.m.

11

G.— 2.

Thursday, 30th May, 1912. The Commission met at 10.30 a.m. Present: Dr. McArthur, S.M., and William Kerr, Esq., S.M. Messrs. Welsh, Bell, and Zachariah were also in attendance. The following witnesses were called by Mr. Bell, and gave evidence on oath. They were cross-examined by Mr. Welsh, the evidence being taken down by the reporter : Waata Wiremu Hipango, Ratana Hupa, Tamati Whanganui, Eriwata Pumipi, Tonga Awhikau, Tinirau Ariki, and Nga Rewarewa. At 4.30 o'clock the Commission adjourned till next day. Friday, 31st May, 1912. The Commission met at 10.30 a.m. Present: Dr. McArthur, S.M., and William Kerr, Esq., S.M. Messrs. Welsh, Bell, and Zachariah were also" in attendance. Mr. Bell called the following witnesses, who gave evidence on oath, being cross-examined by Mr. Welsh : Ratamae Ore and Maui Pomare, M.P. The Commission adjourned at 4.30 p.m. till 10.30 a.m. on Tuesday, 4th June. Tuesday, 4th June, 1912. The Commission met at 10.30 a.m. Present: Dr. McArthur, S.M., and William Kerr, Esq., S.M. T. W. Fisher, Esq. (Under-Secretary for Native Affairs), was present at the request of the Commissioners. Messrs. Welsh, Bell, and Zachariah were also in attendance. Mr. Bell called the following witnesses, who gave evidence on oath, and were crossexamined by Mr. Welsh; the evidence being taken down by the reporter : Rev. Haddon and T. W. Fisher. This closed the evidence on behalf of the Native owners. Mr. Bell then addressed the Commissioners, outlining the evidence brought forward, and Mr. Welsh replied on behalf of the lessees. At 5 p.m. the Commission adjourned till next day. Wednesday, sth June, 1912. The Commissioners met at the Courthouse at 10 a.m. Present: Dr. McArthur, S.M., and William Kerr, Esq., S.M. T. W. Fisher, Esq., was also in attendance. Mr! Zachariah was present at the request of the Commissioners, and produced Public Trust Office files. Thursday, 6th June, 1912. The Commission sat at 10 a.m. Present: Dr. McArthur, S.M., and William Kerr, Esq., S.M. The Commissioners were engaged during the day perusing official documents and exhibits. Friday, 7th ; Saturday, Bth ; Sunday, 9th ; Monday, 10th June, 1912. Dr. McArthur was engaged during these days at Hawera examining files and drafting report, Mr. Kerr having left for Wanganui. Wellington. Friday, 14th; Saturday, 15th; Sunday, 16th ; Monday, 17th ; Wednesday, 19th June, 1912 Dr. McArthur was engaged during these days at Wellington drafting report. Thursday, 20th June, 1912. The Commission sat at the Courthouse at 10 a.m. Present: Dr. McArthur, S.M., and William Kerr, Esq., S.M. The Commissioners were engaged all day and evening in connection with preparation of report. y Friday, 21st June, 1912. The Commission sat at 10 a.m. Present: Dr. McArthur, S.M., and William Kerr, Esq., S.M. The Commissioners were engaged perusing typewritten draft of report. Saturday, 22nd June, 1912. The Commissioners met at 10 a.m. A further draft of report having been prepared, the Commissioners were engaged in perusing same. Sunday, 23rd June, 1912. The Commissioners met at 4 p.m., when final report was prepared and signed by Commissioners. Monday, 24th June, 1912. The Commissioners met at 10 a.m., when report was forwarded to the Hon. the Native Minister for transmission to His Excellency the Governor. This concluded the proceedings of the Commission.

12

G.—2.

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE.

Haweea, Friday, 10th Mat, 1912. [Commission read.] The Chairman: The Commission having been read, I should now like to know who is appearing for the several parties—that is, the lessees on the one side, and the Natives on the other side. Mr. Welsh: I appear, if your Worships please, oil behalf of some fifty-odd lessees under the Act. I will hand in a list of the names of those for whom I appear. [Exhibit A.] Mr. W. H. JJ. Bell: I appear for the Native owners. The Chairman: Is the Public Trustee not represented 1 Mr. Fisher: So far as the Public Trustee is concerned, Mr. Zacariah is present as representing the Public Trust Office in Hawera, to produce any documents that the Commission may require. Mr. Bell: I will ask that the current Public Trust Office file should be before your Worships. The Chairman: The next point is as to the course of procedure, and Mr. Kerr and myself have decided that it is only right and proper that the lessees should be allowed to state their case first. Mr. Welsh: lam quite agreeable to that course. May it please your Worships,—ln approaching the inquiry referred to the Commission, I purpose first of all inviting you, sirs, to shortly consider the facts leading up to and out of which the claims of the lessees under the West Coast Settlement Keserves Act, 1881, and its amendments, arose; and, with your permission, sirs, it will save us considerable time, I think, when we come to deal with the evidence, if I now shortly outline the nature of the case and the manner in which the lessees took up their holdings, and why they claim that they were misled by virtue of the lease itself and the statute and regulations. At the outset I desire to consider the conditions at the time when the lands were leased to the lessees in 1881 and onwards. The lands then were mainly in their virgin state. They were put up to lease, as you will notice by subsection (3) (6) of section 11 of the Act of 1881, " at the best improved rent obtainable at the time," and that is important. Now, some of the lands did not let readily when first put up by the Public Trustee, and they were rightly kept back by him till such time as he could get better rents. Obviously, the Public Trustee was only doing his duty. If he could not obtain the best improved rent obtainable at the time, he knew it was his duty to keep them back and offer them again, and he did so. Now, under the regulations it was made abundantly clear that the fullest publicity should be given to the mode in which the leases were to be offered to the public, and I would invite your attention, sirs, to paragraph 1 of the regulations of 1883. You will there notice these facts, which I desire to emphasize : There was to be public competition, there was to be public notice, the upset rental was to be 5 per cent. on the capital value as fixed by the Public Trustee, and the value so fixed was not to be less than the price for which similar lands could be sold for cash in the district, so that the authorities were quite clear that they were getting the very best rent they could for these lands. The lessee then was no favoured person; he was paying full rent for Native lands in a virgin condition — a district which had but recently emerged from a state of war, surrounded by a large population of Natives (large in proportion to the number of white settlers on the land), whom it would be a mere euphemism to describe as peaceful. The lessee had his home to make and his rent to pay, and it was perfectly clear the settlers were not to be permitted to acquire these lands for the mere purpose of speculation. No- doubt the authorities were well advised when they made the provisions they did that made the leases the subject of acquisition by men who were prepared to live there, and prepared to make their homes there. I invite attention, sirs, to clause 28 of the same regulations. As an example, take 100 acres :by the sixth year the lessee would get 20 acres in cultivation, and also have spent £100 in substantial improvements. The improvements subsequently asked for under the statute of 1892, giving real security of tenure to all leaseholders, were exactly the same as asked for from these people in 1881 —that is, in respect of the new leases. I think that will be of some value, and I desire to refer to clause 55 of the West Coast Settlement Reserves Act, 1892. I will ask you, sirs, to compare that clause with clause 28 of the regulations, and I think it will be seen they are identical. It therefore brings us back to what I started with, that the lessee who took over this land was under no obligation; he was paying rent on the same basis as subsequently fixed by the Act of 1892, and coming in under provisions and regulations which prevented him making much for himself, and he was offered a home under somewhat strenuous conditions. I would ask you now, sirs, to refer shortly to the lease that the lessee was given. I speak subject to correction, but, practically speaking, the form of the lease was the same all through under the statute of 1881. There were certain alterations which do not concern us at present. I desire to refer to paragraph sof the schedule to the Act as to the provisions made for payment to him for his improvements. Under that covenant the lessee is to be paid by the incoming tenant for all buildings and fixtures, including fencing, which are substantial improvements under the regulations, and he has to be paid in full for those. Mr. Kerr: Is there not something in the regulations controlling that?

13

G.—±

Mr. Welsh: Yes, I will come to that. The clause of the regulations dealing with improvements states that improvements means houses and buildings, and includes fencing, planting, draining, and reclamation of land, the benefit of which is unexhausted at the time of valuation; and next I invite attention to clause 28, which deals with occupation and improvements, and to direct attention to the words " substantial improvements," " and should place on such land substantial improvements of a permanent character to the value of £1 for every acre." I venture to think that there can be no doubt that the substantial improvements referred to in clause 28 are the same substantial improvements defined by clause 1 which we have just considered. In fact, that is conceded. Mr. Bell: Yes. Mr. Welsh: Now, I pass on to clause 30, and this clause will probably require some consideration. It states, " Improvements to be suitable to, and consistent with the extent and character of, the holdings; and none shall be allowed for in any valuation in excess of five pounds for every acre of rural land, or ten pounds for every acre of suburban land." Now, I pause there. I would ask you, sirs, to note the word " improvements," and compare that with the two preceding clauses that I have referred to. It is a different expression altogether, the other expression is " substantial improvements." The phrase in the lease is " substantial improvements," it is the same in the interpretation clause; and again in section 28 the phrase is " substantial improvements"; but when you come down to clause 30 it says, "Improvements to be suitable to and consistent with the extent and character of the holdings; and none shall be allowed for in any valuation in excess of five pounds for every acre." You will remember that the lease says that we are to be paid for all buildings and fixtures and fences, which shall be deemed to be substantial improvements under the regulations. The Chairman: As defined by the interpretation clause. Mr. Welsh: So I think. Now I come to clause 30, which, if it refers to substantial improvements, limits our improvements to £5 per acre. But does that clause refer to our substantial improvements at all? I take leave to doubt it. As a matter of law, are the "improvements" in clause 33 the same "substantial improvements" as are referred to in our lease? It is conceded that the effect of clause 32 of the regulations is to embody the regulations in the lease. It is so by statute and by the regulations. Clause 32 of the regulations states, " The conditions set forth in the Act and these regulations as regards leases shall operate and shall be deemed to bind the lessor and the lessee as fully and effectually as if they were set forth in every lease." There you have a conundrum to begin with. Under our lease we are entitled to be paid for substantial improvements in full, and under clause 28 a limit is put on the improvements we are to be paid for. The limit is to be on the improvements that are to be valued and allowed for in the valuation under clause 30. I am sure the peculiar phraseology of the lease will not have escaped your attention. One would have expected in a lease even in 1881 that where it is giving rights to parties, and setting forth respective covenants of so onerous a nature as is included in this lease, that the respective rights would have been set out in plain English so that the lessee may have been able to understand what he was getting. One would have expected that it would have set out what amount he would have received for his improvements. I venture to say that the lease does not attempt to do so, that it was to be for specific improvements, and that at the time the lease was prepared it had not been observed by the draftsman that any such clause was hidden away in the regulations, and I doubt whether the lessees ever saw that. I do not suppose any evidence will be brought forward on that point, but the trap is well open. The Chairman : You do not mean it was a laid trap 1 Mr. Welsh: Not at all, sir. I have simply noted it. I think the draftsman did it in all innocence, but the lessee believed he was getting what it set out he was getting, if not more. The next phase in the history of these transactions that concerns us is consideration of the actions of the lessees and their doings after they got their leases, especially remembering the covenant we have just dealt with giving him his right to his improvements at the end of his term. If you take those words literally in the lease, it was quite obvious he was not to be paid for bushfelling and grassing, because the lease says he is only to be paid for such buildings, fixtures, and fencing as are substantial improvements. Those are the words of the lease, not that he is to be paid for all substantial improvements, but only to be paid for all such buildings, fixtures, and fences as are substantial improvements as defined by the regulations; so that it is perfectly obvious to begin with that he was not getting Mr. Kerr: You think that the regulations contemplated that he was only to get open land and not bush land ? Mr. Welsh: No, sir, and for this reason : that it says he is to bring so much of the land into cultivation. Mr. Kerr: Does it make reference to bushfelling? Mr. Welsh: I think not. Even if it was open land he would have to grass it, and there is no provision made in the lease for grassing. Mr. Kerr: But the interpretation clause is incorporated in the lease. Mr. Welsh: Yes, but he is only to be paid for such buildings, fixtures, and fences as are substantial improvements. The Chairman: You mean it cuts this out, inasmuch as it only means such substantial improvements as houses, buildings, and fences? Mr. Welsh: That is what the lease says. The Chairman : The other improvements are omitted ? Mr. Welsh: Yes. Mr. Kerr: But section 30, which you referred to, incorporates the interpretation clause, surely.

14

G.—2.

Mr. Welsh: There is nothing in the lease or in the regulations which says he is to be paid for all substantial improvements as incorporated in the interpretation clause. That has been conceded throughout the whole inquiry. We petitioned Parliament in that connection because under his lease he was to be paid nothing for his bushfelling or grassing, and special legislation had to be brought down the year before last to enable him to be paid a very limited amount for bushfelling and grassing. That was an act of grace by Parliament. Of course, lam not concerned now in arguing the legal position as to how it stood, but I think it is important now to know the minds of the lessees at the time when they took up their leases. It will be said, " What does the lease say? " Any one reading that lease would see for himself that he was not to be paid for those things, and I admit that any lawyer reading the lease and advising his client would say that according to the language of the lease he was not to be paid for bushfelling or grassing. Very well, what did the lessee do? He devoted all his time and raised all the money he could, and it was difficult to raise money in those days, and spent all his money in getting the bush down, in grassing and fencing the land. The building of a house —the only thing he was to be paid for under the lease —was the last thing to be considered. He was to put up a whare, knock down the bush, and graft there year in and year out in order to get his land into cultivation. That is the history, taken all round, of the early Taranaki settler. Now, is it likely that he would have taken up his lease under those conditions-—that he would have taken on that contract? He never knew if he could carry it through or not in the year 1881. Would he not look forward to the fact that at the end of twenty-one years, when the lease was to fall in, he would be paid something? Is it likely that he would have done what he did to get the bush felled, the land grassed and brought into a state of cultivation, if he knew he was not to be paid a copper for what he was doing, and. that the only compensation lie was to be paid under the lease was for the whare put up and such substantial fences as remained twenty-one years after? There was no substantial fencing at that time. In the year 1910 a measure was brought down which will be referred to during the inquiry, the Native Land Claims Adjustment Act, 1910, section 4. The effect of that statute was that the improvements to be valued should be all permanent improvements under the Land Act, 1908, up to the value of £5 per acre. Mr. Bell: If you had come in under the 1892 Act you would not have got that concession. Mr. Welsh: Those who came in under the 1892 Act got paid for bushfelling and grassing up to £5 an acre. Mr. Kerr: This section seems to concede your contention in regard to improvements. Mr. Welsh: Yes, partially. You will see where it fails in a moment. Under the lease we are entitled to be paid for all our improvements of a special character without limit. Mr. Kerr: That is your contention ;I do not know. Mr. Welsh: In our lease we are entitled to be paid for substantial improvements as denned by the regulations without limit, and I rely a good deal upon that. I am somewhat well advised in regard to this, as it has been well considered. Under our lease we are entitled to be paid for the substantial improvements as defined by the regulations without limit, and I contend, sir, that the limitation of £5 per acre on improvements made by the regulations does not attach to the substantial improvements as defined by the regulations and as incorporated in the lease. The Chairman: You mean that he has something in addition for improvements? Mr. Welsh: It may be. The effect of the legislation is to give us something in addition. Mr. Kerr: Does not the word " improvements " in section 4 cover all improvements effected by the lessee. Mr. Welsh: That is the point. My contention is that the specific words of the lease is a contract to pay us for all our substantial improvements as defined by the regulations. The specific words of that lease cannot be overridden or overcome by subsequent words in a subsequent section of the regulations in which the same words are not used, because the limitation there of £5 is a limitation for improvements, and it does not say that the lessee is not to be paid for them, but it says that no improvements shall be valued at over £5 per acre. When the Act of 1910 was drafted the difficulty was not seen —it had not been perceived what the real effect of the lease was to the lessees. I put it this way : that surely no legislation would have been carried taking away any of our rights without first of all discovering what those rights were, which would have given us the opportunity of going before the Court and discovering what our rights were, and whether we were entitled to substantial improvements -in full. If Parliament thought fit to whittle away any of our rights, that would have been done after giving us the opportunity of being heard. Mr. Bell: Take Tinkler's case. Mr. Welsh: I am coming to Tinkler's case, and it is on that you will fail. One of your duties as Commissioners, sirs, is to inquire into the position as to how the lessees were misled. I am afraid you will find it difficult to get a body of lessees to agree as to what was their reading of the regulations. I hope none of my observations will make it understood that I am impugning anything against the Public Trust Office, because we have received every consideration and courtesy from the Public Trust Office officials. I said there was something in the nature of a trap, but I never intended that my words should mean that anything in the nature of a trap was set by the Public Trust Office officials. When the leases were beginning to run out the Public Trustee put on his considering-cap to see what the effect of these leases was, especially in regard to offering them again to the public, because it is common knowledge that some of the Natives were asking that the land should be given to them to farm. The Public Trustee was aware of the provision in these leases making it obligatory on him to put them up to public auction, and it became necessary for him to have a decision of the Court, and a decision was given in Tinkler's case (11 Gazette L.R. 303). I want to cite Tinkler's case regarding the lessee's right to improvements. In that case the whole question was fully argued and considered. So far as the improvements were concerned, the question was, " Is the felling of the bush and the grassing of the land an

15

G.—2.

' improvement' within the meaning of the said leases? " Well, no lessee could have said it was an improvement within the meaning of the lease, because we have considered the lease already. The lease set out that it was the buildings, fixtures, and fences that would be valued. The question was not argued. All that happened was this : " Mr. Skerrett admits that the third question must be answered in the negative. What are to be valued are the buildings, fixtures, and fencing, and not the bush felled and the grassing. By the agreement of the parties there will be no costs. — Mr. Stafford : Will your Honour indicate what, in your opinion, ought to be valued as ' buildings, fixtures, and fencing ' ?—Cooper, J. : That I cannot do at present. That question is not asked in the special case, and there are no facts stated which can enable me to do so. It is open for the parties, if they cannot agree upon the principle upon which the valuation is to be made, to state the facts, and then upon such facts to ask the opinion of the Court. At present I merely answer the question put and state that the bushfeiling and the grassing of the lands are not improvements to be valued under the lease." There is no suggestion either in the case put to His Honour or in Mr. Skerrett's concession made at the time that there is any limit whatever of £5 per acre to the lessee's improvements. Mr. Bell: I thought Tinkler's case came as a surprise to all the lessees. Mr. Welsh: And to the Public Trustee. Mr. Bell: Yes, and to all the lessees. Mr. Welsh: Quite so. My point is this : that the whole question was overlooked at the time in Tinkler's case as to the value that the lessee was entitled to for these improvements. There is no question he was either entitled to the full value for the whole of his improvements or he was limited to £5 per acre. That question is not put in Tinkler's case. All that the Judge is asked is, Are they or are they not improvements? and he says that bushfeiling and grassing are not improvements under the lease; and Mr. Skerrett concedes that. My point is that again the question was overlooked by those considering the rights and the position of a lessee as to what was the measure of his improvements that he was to be paid for. Was the improvements that he was to be paid for merely his houses, his fixtures, and his fencing limited to =£5 an acre, or was it, as the lease said it was, the whole of the houses, the whole of the fixtures, and the whole of the fencing? I invite you, sirs, to consider that, and to remember that it was not considered in Tinkler's case. I speak now subject to correction, but I say that it must have been clear to the Public Trust Department and the Government lending departments for a number of years past that the lessee was entitled to the whole of his improvements under his lease; that, at all events, ■ the £5 limitation did not apply to the lessee's buildings, fixtures, or fences. So far as the Public Trust Department is concerned, all applications for transfers and all mortgages given by the lessee must have come under the notice of the Public Trust Office for their consent, and it must have been obvious to the Public Trust Department that in many cases the purchaser was paying the lessee a large sum of money over £5 an acre for his improvements, believing that they were entitled to the full measure of their improvements. In that I say at once they were wrong in concluding that they were entitled to the full measure of compensation for improvements, but they were entitled to the full measure of compensation for a certain class of their improvements. To my mind, the facts only point to one conclusion : that the Public. Trust Department did not appreciate the position at the time that the purchasers from the lessees were paying large sums over the limit created by the regulations of £5 per acre. Mr. Kerr: To what improvements do you say section 30 of the regulations refers? Mr. Welsh: We will give evidence on that head, sir. The Chairman: What you really mean, Mr. Welsh, is this: that there are two classes of improvements—improvements so called, and improvements called "substantial improvements"? Mr. Welsh: Yes, that is so. The Chairman: Why, then, should it not be read that they are all in one, and that the interpretation clause does not define improvements, but only defines what shall be called "substantial improvements " ? Mr. Welsh: That is so. The lease, you will remember, refers to it in the same terms, " substantial improvements." There are a number of improvements that are improvements which would not come under the category of " substantial improvements." Take grassing, for instance. Mr. Kerr: The felling of bush would be a substantial improvement. Mr. Welsh: Would it, sir? ••" Mr. Kerr: You are talking about permanent and temporary improvements. Mr. Welsh: Under the Act of 1908 would it Be a substantial improvement? Mr. Kerr: Surely that would be of a permanent character. Mr. Welsh: Undoubtedly, but whether it be a substantial improvement under the definition of " substantial improvements " is open to doubt. Mr. Kerr: In the regulations it says, " Improvements to be suitable to, and consistent with the extent and character of, the holdings; and none shall be allowed for in any valuation in excess of five pounds for every acre of rural land or ten pounds for every acre of suburban land." That is about as comprehensive as you can make it. Your trouble is to make a difference between " improvements " and " substantial improvements." Mr. Welsh: I am not asking this Commission to decide now as to the legal effect of the lease or the regulations or the definition of " improvements," but what I do say is that it is of importance to consider this for the purpose of obtaining a general view of the minds of the lessees at that time, because they were not going about with this Act of Parliament and these regulations in their pockets; they were going about with their leases in their pockets, and it is not only the, lessees that came to that conclusion, but other people also. Mr. Kerr: Those to whom they transferred. Mr. Welsh: And the Public Trust Department and the Government lending departments.

16

a.—2.

Mr. Kerr: That they lent money in advance of this £5 ? Mr. Welsh: Yes. Mr. Kerr: Far in excess of it? Mr. Welsh: No, not far in excess of it. I say that the attitude of the lending departments towards the lessees under this statute should have been, "the value of your improvements is £5, and we will lend you up to two-thirds of that." You will find that they have not lent on the goodwill. I will show that there is no instance in which the valuer has allowed anything on the goodwill, but purely on the valuation for improvements. When we were before the Lands Committee of the House, that Committee called on the Government lending departments for a return that was not disclosed to us. It was a confidential document, and the Government Advances to Settlers Department sent in a memo, to the Lands Committee, and I would ask the Commission to call on the Advances to Settlers Department to produce the same document that they submitted to the Lands Committee. Now I pass on. Under the Act of 1892 these lessees had a right to convert their leases by surrender of their leases that they held under the Act of 1881, and so convert them into leases under the Act of 1892. I will just quote the sections that bear upon the point. Section 7of the West Coast Settlement Reserves Act, 1892, validated the leases theretofore made by the Public Trustee —the leases with which we are now dealing. Then the following section provided that the lessee under the lease validated by section 7 may obtain a new lease, in which case the provisions of section 8 were to apply. That also is the section which touches us. In subclause (2) the procedure is set forth. Then a meeting takes place between the lessees and the Natives to fix a rent, and if they cannot agree the Public Trustee can fix it at 5 per cent, upon the value of the land exclusive of improvements, and then section 3 (i) goes on to provide that lessee's improvements shall be valued, and (i) that the lessees shall only pay such sum in regard to the valuation of improvements in excess of £5 per acre. The general effect of that provision is this : that he could surrender his old lease and take a lease from the Public Trustee at 5 per cent, on the unimproved value, and he would have to - pay the Public Trustee 5 per cent, on the improvements in excess of £5 per acre. A good deal has been heard about the rights of conversion, and I should like to refer to the legislation on the subject. That right extended, to begin with, for twelve months from Ist November, 1892, as will be seen by clause (k) of subsection (3). Then the next statute we have dealing with the matter, so far as I can discover, is the Native Reserves Act Amendment Act, 1895, section 10. The effect of that is not to give him an extension over four years. The right, first of all, was from November, 1892, to November, 1893. Ihen the right in 1895 was from October, 1895; that was when the Act came into force. The Chairman: Instead of reading from November, 1892, you read to November, 1896. Mr. Welsh: No, sir. From November, 1892, to 1893 he has twelve months. That stops in November, 1893, and it is not revived till 31st October, 1895. The Chairman: That is not so. Mr. Welsh: Surely it is, sir. Mr. Kerr: It says, " substitute the words." Mr. Welsh: But until the Act was passed it was not substituted. The Chairman: But if the 1892 Act is not repealed? Mr. Welsh: The Act of 1892 only gave him the right for twelve months. The Chairman: Take 1892, and substitute the words " four years." Mr. Welsh: You cannot do that, because my point is this: that from 1893 to November, 1895, there was no right in existence. The Chairm,an: The right was gone. So as to give him the right they went back to that which he had as a right, and they tacked something else on to him. Mr. Welsh: His right began in 1892. The, Chairman: Do you mean the substitution of four , years for twelve months—the four years can only begin from 1895 ? Mr. Welsh: I say it begins in November, 1892. The Chairman: And it ends in November, 1896. Mr. Welsh: That is exactly what I am saying. What I am endeavouring to point out is that from November, 1893, to October, 1895, the right did not exist, because the Act of 1895 did not come into operation. The Chairman: You are going to say that they have made a jump of four years because you are going to leave out from 1893 to 1895. Mr. Welsh:, I am going to ask you to hold, sir, that that is what the statute says. Mr. Kerr: I see that a certain period elapsed before the Act of 1895 was passed. There was a certain period of four years during which they could not convert. Mr. Welsh: That is my point. What I wish to point out is that his original right was from November, 1892, to 1893. His next right was from October, 1895, to November, 1896. ' That is the effect of it —for two years the second right did not exist. The third right was conferred by the Act of 1898, No. 39, section 20. That Act came into operation on the sth November, 1898. Mr. Kerr: That extended the privilege for two years from the passing of the Act? Mr. Welsh: Yes. That would be from the sth November, 1898, to sth November, 1900. He had one year from November, 1892, to 1893, then he had one year from the 31st October, 1895, to November, 1896, and then two years from sth November, 1898, to sth November, 1900. During that period his rights ran over four years. The rights were not continuous at all. No doubt there was some good reason for that; but all we are concerned with now is to inquire into what was the mind of the lessees at the time. Well, that legislation was not conducive to assist the lessee to discover what the rights were. The Act would come into operation about November, 1892, when the lessee became aware of it; and his rights would be closed up by November, 1893. Then

3—G. 2.

17

G.— 2.

his rights stopped for a couple of years, up till October, 1895, and during those two years he had no means of knowing or no reason to suggest that the rights would be revived later on. He only had the right for four years altogether, which was not continuous. Those rights of conversion are of importance to the lessee. What I want to say is that admittedly some of the lessees under the Act in 1892 knew their right—they knew they had the right to convert, and some availed themselves of it, but others did not. Times were bad, although they were better than in 1880, and the lessee had then had from nine to ten years of pretty hard work on his land. It was all going into the land in those days, and any small increase left meant a great deal to him. More than that, there was a pretty considerable expense for the lessee in converting. Some of the lessees knew of their right to convert, and availed themselves of it, while others did not. Now, as to the second branch of the inquiry, we come to the lessees who in 1892 did not avail themselves of the right, and who did not know subsequently that their right had been revived. I am speaking of the lessees who had known in 1892 and 1893 of the right to convert, but who did not avail themselves of it because they could not financially, and who did not subsequently know that these rights had been revived when they were in a financial position, and would gladly have availed themselves of the rights. The fact will speak for itself that after 1892, the man then whose improvements were under £5 an acre —considerably under —went on for years afterwards heaping improvements on to the land up to £5, £6, £8, and £10 an acre, and did not convert. I think the conclusion must be almost irresistible that they did not know they had the right. The right of conversion meant everything to them —it meant that they were to be paid in full for all their improvements. In 1892 and 1893 and about that time their improvements were about £5 per acre, so that if they came to the Public Trustee to convert, all they would pay him would be the difference in rental they were paying on the 5-per-cent. basis. The only difference they would be paying would be the difference between the small rental based on the 5-per-cent. valuation of 1881 and the valuation of 1893, but in exchange for that they would be getting a lease with full valuation for the whole of their improvements. Mr. Kerr: In excess of £5. Mr. Welsh: No, sir, that is not quite correct. When they converted and got their new lease they would get a new lease with full compensation for all improvements. What you are referring to is that if a lessee converted in 1892 or 1893 or any other time he would have to pay the Public I'rustee for any improvements on the land in excess of £5 an acre; but my point is this, and there will be abundant evidence called by the lessees to demonstrate that when they knew of their first right to convert their improvements had not reached £5, so that all that the lessees would have to pay the Public Trustee would be slightly increased rental. In fact, when the lessees converted, I think in several cases they actually paid a lesser rental than they were paying under the Act of 1881. Mr. Bell: That is so. Mr. Welsh: The point I desire to make is this: In face of all that, these men went on and spent a lot more money on their improvements in addition to bringing the improvements up to far in excess of the £5 an acre. Does not that appeal to one as almost irresistible in the conclusion that they honestly believed at that time that their leases made provision for them to be paid for the whole of their improvements? They could not see the difference between the Acts of 1881 and 1892; they thought under both Acts they were being paid for all improvements. If that is not so, what answer can we give to the question, why did they contiuue to spend a lot of money on their improvements, enhancing the value considerably over £5 per acre, if they did not believe that they had the right at the time of surrendering their leases on payment of quite a small sum and coming in under the Act of 1892? In some cases the rental was not larger, and, I think, in the majority of cases the rental was not very greatly enhanced. I think the valuations, comparing 1881 and 1892, were not so very different as they would be between 1892 and 1900. If the lessees' contention is correct, there is only one conclusion left—namely, that they were misled, not by the Public Trustee and his officials, but by the lease, into the belief that they were entitled to be paid for the whole of their improvements that they were putting on the land. Mr. Kerr: You say they were misled by the terms of the lease, and not by the Public Trustee or his officials? Mr. Welsh: Yes, sir. Mr. Kerr: How many of your clients do you say have made improvements in excess of £5 an acre? Mr. Welsh: I am afraid a great number have. I think at this end of .the province the majority have, but at Opunake not so many, and at New Plymouth and Waitara fewer still probably. At this end you will find probably that the men can substantiate what they have said, that they have gone up to £12, and on quite large holdings too. Of course, on the smaller holdings it would not be so much. Well, after Tinkler's case Parliament was petitioned for relief. I will ask leave to put in the petition. The petitioners gave evidence before the Lands Committee of the House, and the result was that the Chairman of the Lands Committee invited the then Public Trustee to confer with the Chairman, the petitioners, and myself in the hope that we would arrange some terms that the Lands Committee might recommend to Parliament as the basis of legislation. Well, a memorandum was brought down by the Public Trustee at that time. Of course, I have only a copy of that memorandum, and I would suggest that the Commission call for the production of that memorandum. [Public Trust Office file put in by consent.] The case for the petitioners subsequently went before the Native Affairs Committee of the House, and I think you will see a record of the reports brought down by each of those Committees. I think, in the case of the Lands Committee, the case was referred to the Government for favourable consideration, and in the case of the Native Affairs Committee it was referred to the Government for considera-

18

G.—2.

tion. I should like you, sirs, to consider the memorandum of the Public Trustee even now, as it is not too late for remedial legislation being introduced on the lines of that memorandum. That seemed to us a fair and equitable measure of relief. The effect of it was to allow them to come in under the Act of 1892 on their paying a price. If they had up till 1900 to come in, why not let them come in now, provided they pay the Public Trustee for all improvements over £5, and provided they pay the difference in rental between what they were paying in 1900 and what they would have paid in 1900 if they had come in under the Act of 1892. That, you can see, is pretty severe. Mr. Kerr: Is that carrying it out to the times in which they had the right to convert? Mr. Welsh: Yes, calculating from that date. Mr. Bell: Although I said I had no objection to the file going in, I have no objection to the documents, but what is in the file must not be taken as an admission by the Natives of what is fair. It is a statement of what the Public Trustee thinks is fair. The Chairman: No. Mr. Welsh: I do suggest to you, sirs, consideration of that document, which appealed to us all then as a fair and equitable basis for consideration. We were saddling ourselves with a heavy burden. The facts as are outlined, if the evidence I lead bears them out, I think will satisfy the Commission pretty clearly that the lessees did think they were entitled to something a great deal more than the lease gave them : they thought they were entitled to their improvements. I am going to call some witnesses who understood that their improvements were limited to £5 an acre, but there are others who thought they were entitled to all their improvements, and for those men who did not come in under the Act of 1892 to pay the Public Trustee for all their improvements over £5, and pay the difference in the rent, is a pretty fair thing. Thrice they had the right to come in under the Act, and they did not avail themselves of it for the reasons shown. The Public Trustee recognized that, and so did the Committees of the House. It was put to them : they have had three chances, but give them the chance if they are agreeable to pay the difference. We were prepared to accept that, and we are still in hopes that we will get legislation on those lines. I will show that throughout these men, when they first became aware of their position, have endeavoured and done their best to place their grievance before the proper authorities. We did not think that to have introduced a case into the law-courts would have given us any assistance at all. We thought it would have been a costly operation, because it was difficult to get over the exact words of the lease, but that a petition to Parliament would really represent that we have a real grievance. So far as the Natives are concerned, we have no wish to take away anything from the Natives —their birthright; but if as a result of this inquiry Parliament yet refuses to grant some remedial legislation these lands do not revert back to the Natives, because at the end of the leases they have to be put up to public auction and sold. Then we come in with the rest of the world and bid. We are, of course, in a little better position, for the reason that to the extent of £5 an acre we are protected. Mr. Hastie's lease of 500 acres went up since Tinkler's case; he had his improvements up to £5, and he was the successful tenderer for the new lease. I am desirous of pointing out now that if we are refused any measure of redress at all we simply revert to the old position; and under the present legislation all the lessees, as their leases fall in, are paid £5 an acre by the incoming lessees. If the leases are not sold, then it is open to the Public Trustee to tender with us for the sale of the lease, and to grant us a new lease. In fact, you will see that we can stand up and bid against the world, because it is not likely that the lessees are going to permit their homes to go and their improvements to go without a determined bid. Mr. Kerr: That is because you are relying on the fact that these leases, in terms of the Fourth Schedule of the regulations of the Act of 1881 have been validated by subsequent legislation. Mr. Welsh: That is a fact. Mr. Kerr: The point is that under your present position you have only got a conditional right of renewal. Mr. Welsh: We have no right of renewal practically. Mr. Kerr: Not a conditional right? Mr. Welsh: It is conditional if it is not sold by public auction. Let me present another phase. I have so far dealt with the lessees and the Natives. Now, sirs, we come to the question of the land. Is it conducive to good farming, is it conducive for the good of the community or the Public Trustee, to leave this matter unsettled 1 There has been a big difference in the farming of lands in Taranaki within the last-few years. Farming has become closer and higher, and more money has had to be lavished on the land, and improvements which would be fair five, ten, or twelve years ago are not sufficient now. We have to cut our lands into smaller areas. The Dairy Regulations make certain provisions, but they are not sufficient—we go considerably further than the Dairy Regulations provide for, and we say that for good farming we must cut our farm's, which were once small at 100 acres, down to 50 acres; more buildings must be erected, more sheds have to be built, and there must be concrete floors. Now, we are waiting for all that; and the lessees will tell you that to make these farms profitable further sums of money must be expended on them. One gentleman has already spent £10 or £12 an acre on his farm, and he is only waiting for legislation to go through to spend larger sums, and surely that is worthy of consideration. In conclusion, let me say that the lessees are not here to work a land-grabbing scheme of their own; they are not here to try and do the Native out of an acre of his land. The improvements that have been made by the lessee have been made upon his own home, and it is only fair and reasonable that he should endeavour to get a reasonable tenure. I put it to you that it will be established that all down the line the lessees did not understand their position. Had they done so they would not have spent money in bushfelling and grassing, and more than £5 an acre in improvements. If they had understood they would have accepted the right to convert under the Act of 1892. The Commission adjourned till next day.

19

G.—2.

20

[C. ANDBEWS.

Hawera, Saturday, 11th May, 1912. Chaklbs Andrews sworn and examined. (No. 1.) 1. Mr. Welsh.] You are a farmer, and lire at Okato? —Yes. 2. You are a lessee under the Act of 1881 ?—Yes. 3. Section 2, Block 11, Cape Survey District?— Yes. 4. Your acreage is 127 acres?— Yes. 5. And your rent is ss. an acre? —Yes. 6. When did you get possession of your land? —In 1883, I think. 7. Had you been a farmer before then? —No, a tradesman. 8. What inquiries did you make regarding the lease that was offered? —I heard that this section was open for selection, and I got my brother-in-law, a farmer, to inspect it, and also saw Mr. Rennell, the Reserves Agent at the time at New Plymouth. 9. Did you make inquiries from him as to the terms on which the lease was being offered? —Yes. 10. And what were you informed? —I was told the rent was ss! an acre. 11. By Mr. Rennell ? —Yes, ss. an acre, based on the" unimproved value, a lease for thirty years, payment for all improvements at the end of the term, and that the section would then be put up either to public tender or public auction, I am not sure which, and that I would have a chance to bid. 12. The section was to be put up for sale? —At the unimproved value, 13. You mean the lease of the section, not the land itself? —Yes, the unimproved value. 14. You got your lease? —I told him at the time, after consulting with my friend Mr. Dingle, that I would take the section, and he was to prepare the lease accordingly. 15. Mr. Kerr.] Did you bid or tender?—No; this section had been open for selection for twelve months, and it had not been taken up. We considered that the price asked was too high. I think the principle was that after a year if there were no tenders it was open for selection by any person who came along. Mr. Zacariah: It is open immediately the tenders close at the upset. Witness: I might state that I asked Mr. Rennell to reduce the rent, and he said he could not do so without calling for public tenders again. 16. Mr. Kerr.] And you got the lease at the upset?—-Yes. 17. Mr. Welsh.] Did you take possession of the land before you got your lease? —Yes. 18. How long were you in possession prior to receiving your lease? —From two to three months. 19. Then you received your lease?— Yes. 20. What did you do with it? —Well, I had a look through it, and I was not satisfied with it. I thought it was not altogether what Mr. Rennell had represented, and I showed it to my brother-in-law. 21. How were you dissatisfied? —It said nothing about —well, I could not say just now exactly how the lease was worded, but it was not worded as it had been represented to me by Mr. Rennell. 22. In what respect?— That it did not say anything about being paid for all improvements. 23. And what did you do?—I simply did nothing, because I could not. I had spent £200 or £300 on the place, and I thought it was no good saying anything about it. I had built my house at that time. 24. Speaking from memory, can you say what your lease did say at that time? —No, I could not, because I have not seen it since. 25. Well, it said that at the end of the lease your buildings, fixtures, and fences were substantial improvements under the regulations, and should be valued, and that you should be paid for all those by the incoming tenant. Do you remember that? —Yes, I think I can remember that —that was about what it was. 26. That was not what you understood when you took the lease?— No. 27. But you had spent £200 or so, and you determined to go ahead?— Yes. 28. Now, what was the nature of the work done by you upon the land from the time you took possession? —Well, there was something like 30 or 40 acres of furze, and I commenced to clear that up. I worked on the farm all I could. ~ 29. I want you to tell the Commission the condition of the land when you took possession : was it bush land? —It was fair open land, with furze, tutu, and fern. There were about 40 acres of furze, and the rest of the land was tutu and fern. 30. I suppose we can take it generally that you commenced to clear the land ? —Yes. 31. Did you live on it? —Yes. 32. What buildings did you put vp —to what value? —The house cost me about £130, and there was"a small dairy, and small buildings such as piggeries, &c. 33. And you worked at the clearing?— Yes, part of the time at clearing. 34. And the rest of the time? —At other work. 35. Farming the land generally? —Yes. 36. Were you able to pay your rent from the beginning?— Not always. 37. Was any reduction made to you? —Yes. 38. Tell the Commissioners shortly the manner in which the reduction was made : how came it about that they reduced your rent?— Well, times were bad, and the land was not paying expenses. I had to go out to work to keep the land. 39. What work? —Road-making and bushfelling, and different things. Several times I had to borrow money to meet my rent. Of course, I must say that the Public Trust Office was very good to us; they did not push us; but when the time came I often had to borrow money to pay my rent.

G.—2.

C. ANDREWS.]

21

40. Now, about the reduction? —Well, I think a petition was got up to the Government to give us some relief, and I signed it. 41. What was the result of the petition? —They gave us a reduction for a certain time — J think it was for a year. 42. In your case, do you remember what your rent was reduced by? —No, I could not say just now the exact amount. 43. Now, you later became aware that you had the right to convert your lease from that tenure to a lease under the Act of 1892} —Yes. 44. Do you remember when you became aware of that? —About 1892 or 1893—1 think it was somewhere about the beginning of 1893. 45. Did you make inquiries? —Yes. 46. From whom? —Well, in the course of conversation I spoke to Mr. Samuel, my solicitor at the time. 47. Did you consult him? —No, it was only in the course of conversation. 48. From whom else did you make inquiries? —I was in conversation with Mr. Fisher, the Reserves Agent at the time in New Plymouth. 49. And I am sure Mr. Fisher gave you all the information at his disposal?— Yes. 50. Now, as a result of your inquiries at the time, what did you do?—I considered it was not an advantage to me to convert, and would perhaps cost me money, and I was not in a position to find that money at the time. 51. Did you convert?— No. 52. Of course, lately you have discovered a great deal about these leases and your position? —Yes. 53. But at that time was the distinction clear to you between your lease under the Act of 1881 and what you could then have got under the Act of 1892? —No, I do not think it was —in fact, I am sure it was not. 54. In what respect was it not clear to you ?—Well, I understood that at the first I was going to be paid for all improvements, and then afterwards there was something said about only £5 per acre improvements, and that we had to pay the valuation over the £5. 55. To come in under the Act of 1892 you would have had to pay the Maori any difference over £s—you5—you knew that?— Yes. 56. What was the value of your improvements at that time, in 1892 and 1893? Were they over £5? —No, I do not think they were. Of course, I did not know what the Valuer would value them at. 57. But you knew what you had spent on the place? —Yes. 58. As a matter of fact, at that time were your improvements over £s?—l did not consider they were, but we never know what the Valuers will put on them. 59. The Chairman.'] And you never know what the sellers will put on them?— No. 60. Mr. Welsh.] Did you know what the value was to be? —Well, Mr. Fisher informed me. 61. Would you have been satisfied with his valuation?—l do not know what his valuation would have been. 62. Would you have been satisfied with him as a valuer? —I did not know who the valuer would be. 63. After 1892, did things get better with you?— Yes; some three or four years after that they began gradually to improve. 64. Did you expend any more money on improving your land after that time?— Yes, I kept on expending. 65. And what do you estimate the value of your improvements now? —From about £8 to £9 an acre. 66. Between 1892 and 1900 did you spend much on improving the lands?—Oh, yes, a lot. I added to my house and built cow-sheds. 67. After 1892—after the time you were aware of the right of conversion—did you become aware of any further rights of conversion after that period?—No, in 1893 I think it was. I did not trouble to make any inquiries. 68. Did you receive any notice from any one?— No. 69. You know the difference now between the lease under the Act of 1892 and the lease under which you held ?—Yes. 70. If at any time between November, 1900, which was your last opportunity to convert — between then and going back to 1893, had you been aware of your rights, would you have exercised them?— Yes. 71. You would have come in under the Act of 1892? —Yes. 72. It was in 1893 that you first became aware of your right of conversion? —At the end of 1892 or the beginning of 1893. 73. And you told us you spoke to Mr. Samuel on the matter, and also to Mr. Fisher?— Yes. I did not go specially to see Mr. Fisher. 74. What was Mr. Fisher at that time ?—He was Native Reserves Agent. I could not say what he was for sure. He was the party to whom we paid the rent. 75. Mr. Fisher was not appointed Reserves Agent till 1895 —two years later?—l could not say the date, but I spoke to Mr. Fisher. 76. Are you sure of the time you first became acquainted with your right of conversion? — Yes, in 1892 or 1893. 77. You could not have spoken to Mr. Fisher as Reserves Agent if he was not Reserves Agent at that time? —No, I could not. I cannot remember the date I spoke to Mr. Fisher. Ido not know what year it was in. [Mr. Bell objected to the nature of the questions, as leading.]

G.—2.

[0. ANDREWS.

78. Mr. Kerr.] Are you sure it was Mr. Fisher? —Oh, yes. I do not say it was in 1893 I saw Mr. Fisher, but I did see him. If I said before it was in 1893 I saw him I desire to correct that. 79. The Chairman.] Well, what date was it? —I could not say what date it was; it is so long ago. 80. Mr. Welsh.] Are you sure it was Mr. Fisher you saw? —Yes. 81. Then, it must have been some time after 1895?—1t might have been. 82. The Chairman.] How long before you saw Mr. Fisher was it that you became aware of your right of conversion? —I could not say, because I cannot remember the date 1 saw Mr. Fisher. 83. How long was it before you saw Mr. Fisher that you knew you could convert?—lt was some considerable time —I could not say how long. 84. We want to know when you first knew you could convert?— About 1893. 85. Mr. Welsh.] Well, I come down to the year 1900. Knowing the difference now between the two tenures of 1892 and the lease under which you held in 1881, if you had been aware of the difference would you have converted in 1900 when you had the opportunity ? —Yes, certainly. 86. Now, since the year 1900 have you further improved your land? —Oh, yes. I built a butter-factory for one thing. 87. In what year?— About eleven years since. I could not say the year now. It was about 1901 or 1902. 88. What did the butter-factory cost you?— About £300. 89. Have you done any other improvements since then , ?—-Yes, I have added two rooms en to the house and built a cow-shed. That cost me £130 alone. 90. What did the two rooms cost you?— About £75. 91. In what year were the two rooms added? —The two rooms were built in 1902. 92. Have you done any other improvements to the place since then?— Yes, I have planted a lot of fruit-trees and shelter-trees at different times, and kept on ploughing up and grassing and improving the farm. 93. In what condition is the farm now as a whole? Is there any bush left on it at all?—No, it was not a bush section. 94. Is there any fern left on it, or any gorse?—No. 95. What class of farming do you carry on? —Principally dairying. 96. How many cows do you milk?— About seventy-five, but they are not all on this farm. I have other land as well. 97. The dairy is on this farm? —Yes. 98. What is the total value of your improvements at the present date? —About £8 to £9 an acre. 99. And do you ask still for the right to come in under the Act of 1892 ?—Yes. 100. You gave evidence before the Lands Committee of the House? —Yes. 101. And you saw the memorandum the Public Trustee produced to the Lands Committee? —Yes. 102. Were you willing, speaking for yourself, to accept the terms on which it was suggested in that memorandum that the lessees might be allowed the right to convert ?—Yes, perfectly, because I thought it was fair to both parties. 103. Are you still of the same opinion? —Yes. 104. Cross-examined by Mr. Bell.] Now, Mr. Andrews, when you took up your section you told us that you made some inquiries as to the terms?— Yes. 105. Who did you make those inquiries from?— Mr. Rennell 106. You had not had any experience of taking up land before? —No. 107. So that it is quite possible you misunderstood what Mr. Rennell told you about it?—l might have done, but Ido not think I did. I had a friend with me. 108. Have you got a good memory for these things?—A fairly good memory—l forget some things. 109. You will remember you stated in your evidence that you did not get your' lease until after you had been in possession for some two or three months? —I could not say it was two or three months, but it was some time after I had been in possession. 110. When you got your lease? —Yes. 111. You read it and came to tne conclusion that it was not what you had bargained for? Yes. 112. Now, you told Mr. Welsh that you gave evidence before the Lands Committee of the House? —-Yes. 113. I will read you your evidence there — "Mr. Anderson.] Did you know anything about the £5 for improvements?— No." " You took your lease up originally?— Yes." " And never read the lease? —No; I simply went by what Mr. Rennell told me." Which of those two stories is accurate? —At the time I took up the land I did not read the lease, because I had not got it. That is quite right, because I had not seen the lease when I took up the land. 114. Well, you think it is more likely that Mr. Rennell misled you than that you misunderstood Mr. Rennell?—l could not say. 115. Did you see any of those documents prepared for the Public Trust Office explaining the terms of the lease? —None at all. I am speaking of the time 1 was in conversation with Mr. Rennell. There was nothing of that sort shown to me at the time. 116. Did you ever see one?— Not until I was down in Wellington some two years since. 117. You never saw one before that? —No, I do not think I did. 118. Do you take the Hawera Star? — No. 119. Do you take any newspaper at all? —I take the Daily News at the present time. 120. Did you take any newspaper at that time? —I do not think I did —I am not sure.

22

G.—2.

C. ANDREWS.]

23

121. How long have you been taking the Daily News? —I could not say —perhaps seven or eight years. 122. And until then you never took a newspaper at all? —Not regularly. I used to buy one occasionally. 123. I suj)pose you are generally in touch with other lessees? —Yes. There are not any lessees living close by me —they are a distance off. 124. I suppose you have seen them frequently? —Not very often —at that time I did not. 125. Now, when you discovered, as you say, that your lease was not what you bargained for, did you say anything to Mr. Kennell? —No. 126. You never mentioned it?— No. 127. You never complained to him that he had not carried out his bargain?—No, I did not interview Mr. Rennell, because I thought it was no good. 1 had spent money on the farm, and if 1 had said it was not what was represented I would have to go out. 128. You signed the lease without knowing what was in it? —Yes. 129. After you made your bargain?— Yes. 130. You know that the 1892 Act is an advantage—that you would be better off under the 1892 Act? —I do not know it. 131. You do not know it now? —No. 132. Would you convert if you could get in under the 1892 Act? —Yes, of course. 133. Well, it must be a better bargain?—l did not know it at the time. 134. But, as a matter of fact, it would be a better bargain? —Well, it would be a bargain in this way : that what I have found out since. 135. As a matter of fact, it would be a better bargain if you could come in under the 1892 Act?— Yes, but not if I was paid for all my improvements, as I thought I would be at one time. 136. What you want to do is to be allowed to come in under the 1892 Act? —Yes. 137. You will improve your position if you do that?—lt is this way : There is a certain amount of sentiment in connection with my home. I have reared thirteen children on it. They look to it as their home, and I would like to retain the place by paying the Natives what is fair. 138. Am I to understand that your only reason in wanting to come in under the 1892 Act is merely a matter of sentiment? —A certain amount of sentiment. 139. What about the rest?—l would not like to lose my home. 140. Is it not profitable for you to come in under the 1892 Act? —Not if I pay the Natives a fair rent. 141. Would you not be better off under the 1892 Act? —Yes, I suppose I would be. 142. You had already made a bargain in 1881 with your eyes open, because you said you knew what the lease meant when you signed it. Now you want to get a better bargain?—l do not know about a better bargain. As long as I pay the Natives the rent on the unimproved value. 143. I am not asking you what is fair to the Natives. You made a bargain in 1881 with your eyes open, and now you want to improve on that bargain because other people have done so ? —Simply because I found out afterwards that it was not what I thought it was. 144. You admit you had your chance in 1893? —Yes. 145. If you had made careful inquiries then you would have realized what the position was : is that so ?—Yes, I suppose I would. 146. And you did not make those careful inquiries? —Well, I inquired from Mr. Oliver Samuel in the course of conversation, and he told me that he could not see any advantage in it. 147. What date was the conversation with Oliver Samuel?—l could not say. 148. It might have been in 1895, after the right to convert expired?— Yes, it might have been, but I do not think it was. 149. You are a pretty bad hand at dates? —Yes, because I do not keep any diary, and I cannot remember those dates. These things have been going on for twenty-seven years. 150. You are sure you had a conversation with Mr. Oliver Samuel at that time?— Yes. 151. You did not have a conversation with the Reserves Agent? —Yes, in the course of a chat. I did not go to him specially about it. 152. Do you remember a conversation with the Reserves Agent at that time—in 1893?—-Yes. 153. Who was it?— Mr. Fisher. 154. I asked you if you had qjiy conversation with the Reserves Agent in 1893 ?—I do not know if Mr. Fisher was at that time that I had the conversation. It may have been some time after. 155. You did not take the right to convert in 1893?—N0. 156. During the time you had the right to convert, whom did you discuss the position with?— I do not know that I discussed the position with anybody at that time, but some time about then, or afterwards, I had a conversation with Mr. Fisher and Mr. Samuel. 157. But you do not know whether that affected your mind, because it might have been after the time of the right to convert ceased?— Yes, it may have been. 158. In fact, in the case of Mr. Fisher it was?— Yes, it may have been. 159. You are not certain whether, during the first year you had the right to convert, you ever discussed your position with any one, or took any steps to ascertain how you stood? —I have told you I did not. 160. If you did not take any steps to inquire about the matter, what have you to complain of in being shut out now? —I have got many things since then that I was not aware of before. 161. What? —Tinkler's case, for one. 162. And what did Tinkler's case decide that you were not already aware of?— That we were to be paid for nothing but buildings and fences. 163. You did not know that before? —No, I did not. 164. Did anything else turn up?—No, I do not know that there is anything else.

G.—2.

24

[C. ANDREWS.

165. Then there is only one thing?— That is one. I could not bring to mind anything else just now. 166. Did you know of any extension of the time within which you could convert —you knew the time originally expired in 1893? —Yes. 167. Have you ever known since that you had the right to convert? —I do not think so. I " have never been notified to that effect. 168. You have never received any notification from the Public Trustee? —No. 169. You got your notification when you first got the right" —Yes. 170. There was a circular posted to you on the 14th December, 1898, informing you that the time had been extended : you say you never received that? —Yes. 171. There is a letter on the file from Mr. Fisher to the Public Trustee saying he has sent a letter, and encloses a list which includes the name of "Andrews, C," and you swear you never received that registered letter at all? —Yes, I do. I cannot remember it. 172.. I want you to swear that you never received it if you can?— Yes. 173. If you say you do not remember having received it that is another matter? —I never received a registered letter in my life, to my knowledge, from the Public Trustee. 174. Mr. Martin was the Public Trustee at the time?—l could not say. 175. Then, the reason you did not convert in 1893 was, I think you told us, that, firstly, you found that the lessees had to pay the Natives anything 6ver £5 an acre in improvements, and that you had not got money enough at the time. Now, did not that point strike you as odd that anything over and above £5 an acre in improvements had to be paid over? —Yes it did. 176. Did you not inquire for the reason of that in the Act of 1892?—N0. .177. Although it struck you as odd? —Yes. 178. You told us you discussed this matter of the lease with Mr. Samuel once or twice?— Yes. 179. Did you ever discuss with him the question of any limitation of price which you should be paid for your improvements?—No, he said I was to be paid for all improvements, and lent me money to that extent. 180. Did you ever ask him whether the improvements were limited to £5 an acre? —I do not know that I ever put it in that way —that there was any limitation. He always led me to believe that I was to be paid for all improvements, and lent me money on it to that extent as late as 1896. 181. As a matter of fact, Mr. Samuel was paid back the £400 he lent you?— Yes. 182. He did not lose any money?— No. 183. He may have thought you were a good mark, and did not worry about the security?— Well, Ido not know. I had done business with him for twenty-seven years, and I suppose he would know what I was. 184. He knew you were a man who would meet your obligations?—-I do not think he would have lent me the money if he had not. He took this lease as security, and I already had money on it from the Advances to Settlers Department. 185. £300?— Yes. 186. That made £700 altogether?— Yes. 187. What was the value of the improvements then? —I could not say. 188. Was it as much as £700 when Mr Samuel lent you the money?—ln 1905-1906 it might have been, but if I was only getting paid for buildings and fences it would not have been. 189. It was in 1906, you think, that Mr. Samuel lent you the money? —Yes. 190. Well, you told the Lands Committee that it was in 1902? —Well, I correct that; it was in 1906. 191. You told Mr. Welsh that £300 from the Advances to Settlers Department and £400 from Mr. Samuel was more than the improvements at the time?—l do not know that; that was a matter of opinion. 192. You made it as a definite statement before the Lands Committee. You were asked, "You got £700 on your farm? —Yes." "Mr. Welsh.] That was a lot more than the improvements were worth at that time? —Yes"? —It was a lot more than the valuation was, but it was not more than I considered it was worth. 193. It was more than the Government valuation?—l could not say what the valuation was in 1906. 194. Am I to understand that-you were saying what you did not believe to be true before the Lands Committee?— No. 195. Then, I may take it that what you did say to the Lands Committee was that that was a lot mere than the improvements were worth at the time, and you intended to be believed? — It was not more than the local valuations, but I thought that my improvements were worth a lot more than the local valuation. 196. How do you consider £700 compared with the improvements at the time? —1 could not say. 197. I suppose you will admit that you told the Lands Committee that £700 was a lot more than the improvements were worth at that time?—l might have done. 198. If Mr. Samuel lent you £400, and brought the total on your property up to more than the total value of the improvements, he cannot have been taking stock of the security, and must have been relying upon your personal guarantee ? —He might have done. 199. Was the security that you gave to Mr. Samuel over your improvements alone, or over the goodwill or lease, or over the stock that you had connected with the farm?— The goodwill of the lease. 200. Nothing to do with the stock? —I could not say now. Ido not think so, but I am not certain. 201. Was there a bill of sale over the stock to Mr. Samuel? —I could not say now.

G.—2.

C. ANDREWS.]

25

202. I suppose when you took up the land you thought you could make it pay at the rent? —I thought so. 203. You used your judgment? —Times were fairly good then for a year or two. 204. Now, about 1887, I think, your rent was reduced? —Yes. 205. In consequence of a petition it was reduced, roughly, by half?—l could not say exactly now; it was something like that. 206. You got the benefit of that, the Native owner did not? —I do not know what the Native owner got. 207. Well, he got exactly half the rent he was getting up to then?—l suppose he did. 208. You got that concession so long as times were bad? —Oh, no, only for two or three years; three years, I think. 209. It was for five years?—l do not think it was five years. 210. That was a concession to you ? —lt meant if we did not get that we would have had to give up the land. 211. If you had been leasing from a private owner you would have thought he was fairly generous to reduce your rent by half over a period of five years? —Yes. If he thought it was not possible to pay the rent, if he was a just man he would reduce it. 212. If he was trying to squeeze the last ounce out of you he would not? —No. 213. So that you had not been badly treated up to 1892? —No. 214. You were treated with every consideration? —Yes. 215. The Public Trustee treated you with every consideration, and did not press you for your rent? —No. 216. I suppose you realize that when the Public Trustee does not press you for your rent the Native has to stand out of it?—Oh, no. The Native is paid six months in advance, and my rent has always been paid six months before the next was due. The Natives did not stand out of my money. 217. Yes, they did, because the Public Trustee distributes the money immediately it is paid to him ?—But we always paid in advance. 218. If you got that concession from a private landlord you would not think you were being harshly treated? —No, but considering we would have had to leave the land. 219. The Native may have something to say about taking the land. He was receiving a rental reduced by half?— Yes, certainly. 220. So that the boot is not all on one foot? —No. 221. Mr. KerrJ\ What was your reason for not converting when you had the opportunity of doing so? You knew you had the right to convert in 1892-93, did you not? —Yes. Weil, the first reason was that I had to put a certain amount of money down—l forget what it was, but somewhere near £8. I had not got the money, and could not get it. Then I had to surrender my lease, and I stood the risk of having to pay the Maori a certain amount of money, and having the rent raised. 222. How do you make that difference? You said that you did not consider your improvements were over £s?—Yes, but you will understand there had to be a valuation, and I did not know what the Valuer was going to value me at. I did not like to take the risk. 223. But supposing lie had valued, could not you have got an estimate of the value before surrendering your lease?— Yes, I could have got an estimate, but not from the Public Trust Office people. 224. Not without first surrendering your lease?—l do not think so. I think the first thing we had to do was to surrender our lease. 225. As you thought your valuation was under £5 you would not expect, under those circumstances, you would have to pay any excess to the Public Trustee? —I did not like to risk it. I did not know what the Valuer was going to value it at. I might have had money to pay to the Maori, and I was not in a position to pay it at the time. 226. Do you assert that you never received any letter from the Public Trustee intimating to you that you had a right to convert?— Yes. 227. You say that positively?— Yes; not after the first notification in 1893. I think I received nothing after that. 228. When you were asked to sign the lease you then read it?— Mr. Rennell read the lease to me, but I did not understand it until my wife explained it to me. 229. And then you say you discovered that it was not exactly in the same terms as Mr. Rennell had represented to you : is that so? —Yes. 230. You were dissatisfied with that in consequence?— After studying the thing out. 231. Did you not think it worth while to mention the matter to Mr. Rennell, and ask him why he had got you to sign a lease which was in terms different to those represented to you ? —I might have done so, but I did not. I thought that, as I had spent so much money on the land, if I was not satisfied with the lease I could simply go out, and get nothing for it. The very day I instructed Mr. Rennell 1 would take the land I went to the sash and door factory and ordered my timber, as I had my cows coming in, and I wanted to get started. 232. What do you say it really was that Mr. Rennell told you?—He told me that the conditions of the lease were 5 per cent, based on the unimproved value of the land, and at the end of thirty-one years our improvements would be valued by arbitration, and I would get paid for improvements. 233. Did he not state any limit to the value you would be paid?—No; to be paid for all improvements. 231. Mr. Rennell is still living in Wanganui I —Yes. 1 took a friend with me, a Mr. Dingle. I was a tradesman myself, and did not know anything about land-dealing, and Mr. Dingle and Mr. Rennell did all the talking. I did not have anything to say.

4—G. 2.

G.—2.

26

[O. ANDREWS.

235. The Chairman.'] Why did you not do all the talking afterwards, when you found that Mr. Rennell had told you one thing and you got a lease with another thing in it? —Well, I did not. 236. That is what I cannot understand : you say he told you most distinctly that you would .get all your improvements paid back on valuation, and you got a lease which contains another thing, saying it is limited to £5 an acre ?—I do not think my lease did say that. 237. Well, it is in the regulations. Why did you not go to Mr. Rennell about it there and then ?—I could not say now. I cannot explain it. 238. When you took up the land at first Mr. Rennell told you you would be paid for all improvements, and the lease did not contain that : why did you not tackle him then ? —I cannot say. 239. Mr. Kerr.] How did you get to know about it that this section was thrown open?—l was trying to get a small piece of land from the Maori owner of this property, and he told me about this section that was open, and I went and had a look at it. I took my friend Mr. Dingle with me. The Maori owner was Korikapa. 240. Mr. Welsh.] Can you say of your own knowledge whether there are any lands in your neighbourhood that are occupied by white men under lease or license from those Native lessees who are holding from the Public Trustee? —I could not speak of any such instance just now, but I had one myself for seven years. 241. Do you know of any instance at the present time?— No. The Public Trustee complained that the furze was not kept down and the place kept clean, and 1 asked for a lease from the Reserves Agent, and 1 got it. This Native held it under an occupation license. I had it for seven years, and afterwards I got it from the Public Trustee. 242. What was the acreage of the land you were holding in this fashion? —140 acres. 243. Mr. Bell.] What was the name of the Maori? —Rangiekieki. That was 100 acres, but I could not say who the other belonged to. The Commission adjourned till 10.30 a.m., Monday.

Hawera, Monday, 13th May, 1912. Joseph Best sworn and examined. (No. 2.) 1. Mr. Welsh.] You are a farmer? —Yes. 2. Living where?—At Mangamingi. 3. You are a lessee under the Act of 1881 ? —Yes. 4. What is your section? —No. 18, Block XIV, Ngaire. 5. What is the acreage? —200 acres. 6. And the lease will expire when?—ln 1913—30 th June. 7. Are you an original lessee? —Yes. 8. What is your rent? —3s. per acre. 9. When you took up your lease, what did you think you were to be paid for in regard to improvements? —Well, of course it was a bush section. There were about 5 acres of fern and tutu and the rest was all heavy bush, and I thought I would be paid for improvements up to £5 an acre. 10. You knew of the limit of £5 an. acre?— Yes. 11. Now, for what class of improvements did you understand you were to be paid?— Fencing, buildings, bushfelling, and grassing. 12. You thought you were to be paid for those up to £o an acre?— Yes. 13. And did you think you had the right of renewal under the lease?—No, I did not think I had any sight. 14. What was to happen to the lease at the end of the term? —It was to be revalued and put up for public competition again. 15. And if not sold, what was to happen to it?— Well, we were to come to terms with the Public Trustee if we could for a renewal of the lease. 16. Now, at the time you the land what was its condition?—lt was all standing bush except a small piece of about 5 acres. 17. And what did you do?— The first thing I did was to build a whare, and then I started to fell the bush. 18. Did you go on to the land yourself?— Yes. 19. How long did you remain on the land? —Well, I was continuously residing on the land for twenty-five years. 20. You got a slight reduction in rent, I think? —Yes. 21. What was the amount in your case?—Bd. per acre. It was reduced from 3s. to 2s. 4d. 22. For what time? —For five years. 23. Did you make any effort to convert your lease? —Yes. 24. What was the first step you took?— There was a public meeting called of the different lessees under the 1881 Act asking for the Act to be amended so that it would include all improvements, and the Act was amended and we were given the opportunity of coming under the amended Act of 1892. 25. After that Act of 1892 became law what did you do?—I made application to come under that Act. 26. To whom did you make the application?—To the Public Trustee. 27. And what was the result of your application?— They sent a Valuer round to value the land, and they put the rent up to such an extent that I could not see my way to accept.

27

G.—2.

J. BEST.]

28. What did you do then? —I withdrew my application. Previous to withdrawing the application I went to Wellington to see Mr. Warburton, the Public Trustee at that time, to see if he could either revalue or put it in accordance with the other land that had been revalued just previously. 29. Was he able to assist you?—No, he said he could not do anything. 30. Did it cost you anything? —It cost me about £12 or £12 10s. 31. How was that cost made up? —I sent along some of the money with the application, and afterwards, of course, I sent my lease along when I applied to surrender, and then I got a bill back from the Public Trustee for the amount that was owing. It amounted to about £12 or £12 10s. 32. Was that money paid by you to the Public Trustee? —Yes. 33. It was not including your private expenses to Wellington, or the lawyer's expenses?—Oh, no, it was paid to the Public Trustee. 34. Well, you withdrew your application?— Yes. 35. Can you tell us what the value of your improvements were at that time upon your land? — They would be about £4 10s. an acre at that time. 36. Do you know what they were valued at by the Valuer at that time? —No. I never had a list of what he made the improvements up to. 37. Now, what year was it that you went to Wellington and saw the Public Trustee and withdrew your application? —It would be 1893. 38. Now, after that date, did you ever hear of any further right to convert under the Act of 1892 I —No, I never heard of any more. 39. If you had been aware in 1900 that you had the right of conversion would you have exercised it?— Yes. 40. The right of conversion on the same lines and the same basis as you understood your rights in 1892? —Yes, I would have converted then. 41. On what basis was your rent to be assessed in 1892, did you know? —The rent then was to be fixed by the Valuer appointed by the Public Trustee. 42. What did he fix?— The original rent was 35., and he raised it to 4s. Gd. 43. You say you would have been willing to come in later on in 1900 : what rent would you have been willing to pay?—l would have been willing to pay 65.; land had gone up, and was becoming more valuable. 44. On what basis did the Valuer fix the rental upon in 1892 ?—I cannot say how he fixed it. 45. Did you think the Valuer fixed the rent or fixed the valuation? —He fixed the valuation. 46. And what was the rent assessed upon?—?> per cent, on that valuation. 47. You were not satisfied with the Valuer's valuation in 1892?—N0. 48. Now, since then have you added anything further to your improvements upon the farm? —Yes, I have ploughed some and done a great deal of logging up, all the timber is off, and I have done a lot of burning and that sort of thing. 49. Can you give the Commission your own estimate of what you value your own improvements at upon the land at the present day?— Yes, 1 value the improvements at the present time at about £5 10s. per acre. 50. For what purpose do you use the land? —Grazing purposes. 51. You do not dairy upon it? —No, I have sheep and cattle running upon it. 52. Is not the land suitable for dairying? —Yes, but it wants to bo made into two farms. It fronts on to two roads, the Fraser Road and the Mountain Road, and there is a fairly big gully which runs through it, and there would have to be two sheds on it. 53. Is the land suitable for dairying? —Oh, yes. 54. What improvements would you require to put upon the land if you wished to bring it into dairy farms now? —It would take.from £4 to £4 10s. per acre to build suitable buildings and houses to bring it into dairying. 55. Now, assuming that you held a lease under the Act of 1892, with a right of renewal for twenty-one years at 5 per cent, on the unimproved value at the end of that time, would you bring that land into dairying? —Yes. 56. And you say it would cost from how much? —From £4 to £4 10s. to build suitable buildings and fences "to bring it into'dairying. 57. Gross-examined by Mr. Sell.] Now, Mr. Best, you say you knew there was a limit of £5 per acre on your improvements?— Yes. 58. Did you see many other lessees about that time? —Yes, I saw a good many. 59. Did they know that it was limited to £s?—Yes, I think a good many did. Those in my locality knew. 60. Now, before the 1892 Act was passed there was a public meeting of lessees under the 1881 Act?— Yes. 61. Were most of the lessees there?— Well, there were a good many. 62. Was the question that was raised at that meeting generally talked about in the district?—■ Yes, around Normanby and Okaiawa. 63. And was the description of the improvements that were to be compensated for discussed at that time? —No; we all understood that bushfelling was included. 64. The question of £5 an acre limitation and the desirability of getting a permanent renewal was discussed amongst the lessees generally? —Yes. 65. At the time you had the right to convert in 1892 you think the value of your improvements was about £4 10s. ?—Yes. 66. And the value of your improvements now is about £5 10s. ?—Yes. 67. Now, are you aware that one of the arguments for the lessees at the inquiry before the Lands Committee on this question was that they could not have understood there was a limitation

G.—2.

28

[J. BEST.

of £5 per acre or they would not have spent more than £5 on improvements? Why did you put more than £5 in improvements on your land when you knew that you could only be compensated up to £s?—lt would pay me to do it. 68. It would pay you to lose that 10s. an acre because you would make more out of the land meanwhile I —Yes. 69. Mr. Tierr.} Did you know or do you know under what conditions you could get a new lease in 1900? —No, I did not know. 70. The Chairman.} You said you knew nothing at all about the right to convert in the Act of 1892? —That is so, sir. 71. You did not know whether you had a right to convert or not?— Not anything after that. 72. Mr. Kerr.} Do you know now what conditions you would have been under if you had taken up a lease in 1900?— Yes, I know since I have been in town. I heard on Saturday last. 73. You did not know Before that? —No. 74. The Chairman .] Seeing that you gentlemen took such an active interest in this matter— and rightly so —and held a meeting, do you think it possible that other lessees should know nothing at all about this? We have it in evidence that a certain lessee did not know anything at all about his right to convert? —Well, we did not travel about much. 75. Did all your people round your district know?—l think they all knew round, say, Normanby and Okaiawa. 76. Did you have the regulations before you?— Yes, I think the thing was generally discussed. 77. Would you discuss it without having the regulations and without having the Act?—l do not think we had any Act, but we would have the regulations. 78. You knew exactly all the conditions under which you had the right to come under the 1892 Act? —Yes. 79. And in plain English it would not have paid you to have come under?— Not at that time, sir. 80. Mr. Bell.} Who convened the meeting that was held? —I cannot say, but I think it was Mr. H&slop. He held a good bit of this land. 81. Was he in your district? —Yes, he was on the Hastings Road, but I am not quite sure it was him. 82. Was there a circular issued calling you to the meeting?—No, I think it was just casually mentioned from one to the other. He may have written to some. 83. Were there settlers there from other parts of the district? —Not at this meeting. 84. Only those living around about you? —Hound about the locality. There was a good deal of Native land round Okaiawa and on the Mountain lioad, and it was the lessees there that would meet. 85. Mr. Welsh.} It was a local meeting?— Yes. 86. Was the railway-line through in those days?— Yes, it was through from New Plymouth to Hawera. 87. Mr. Kerr.} You say you were one of the original lessees? —Yes. 88. How did you come to know that the compensation you would get for the improvements you might effect would be limited to £s?—l was supplied with a copy of the regulations. I was in the office several times. In the first place, I tendered for a section, and some one tendered above me, and then I came back to the office to see if any had not been, applied for. 89. The Chairman.} You were anxious to get it?— Yes, I wanted to get a piece of land. 90. Do you mean to say you would not take it now at the same price?— Yes, I would take it now at the same price. 91. Mr. Eerr.} You were furnished by the office with a copy of the regulations?— Yes. Mr. Mackay and another man in the office gave me a lot of information. I had several conversations with them. 92. The Chairman?} May the Commission take it that you were fairly conversant with all the conditions existing at the time? —Yes. Henry Parker Best sworn and examined. (No. 3.) 1. Mr. Welsh.} You are a farmer, and live at Normanby? —Yes. 2. And you are a brother of £ne last witness? —Yes, that is so. 3. Do you also hold a lease under the Act of 1881 ? —Yes. 4. What is the number of your section ? —Section 17, Block XIV, and Section 14, Block XIV, Ngaire —two separate leases. 5. Were you an original lessee? —No. 6. How long ago is it since you purchased ? —Section No. 17 1 have had about twenty-four years. 7. Who did you buy from?— From Mr. J. Smith. 8. And the other section you have held how long?— About twenty years. 9. When you purchased you were aware of the £5 limitation in regard to improvements?— At that time, yes. 10. Over what improvements did you think you were to be protected to the extent of £5? —Bushfelling, grassing, buildings, fencing, and general improvements. 11. What were the nature of the improvements on the land when you purchased it? —On Section 17 there were about 20 acres of bush felled and ring-fenced and a small whare. 12. And the other section? —That was all felled, grassed, and fenced. 13. Did you ever apply to convert? —Yes, in 1893. 14. And did you proceed to convert or not? —No. 15. Why not? —I considered the valuation was too high at that time compared with other valuations on the road.

H. P. BEST.]

G.—2.

16. Since that time have you been aware of any other rights that you had to convert? —No. 17. If you had come in under the Act of 1892, do you know on what your rent was to be -based ?—Yes, on the revaluation at that time, I take it. 18. What was your rent originally?—2s. an acre. 19. If you had come in under the Act of 1892 you knew there would be a revaluation?— Yes. 20. And what was the rent to be based upon? —3s. sd. per acre. 21. How did you know it was 3s. sd. ? —According to the revaluation it would work out to that. 22. After that date you did not hear of any right to come in under the Act of 1892?—N0. 23. What was your financial position then? Was it strong? —No, I had to work outside to keep the section going. 24. What kind of work ? —Shearing and general fencing, and whatever I could get. 25. Working as a farm labourer for other men? —Yes. 26. That was in 1892?— Yes. 27. Now, if you had been aware of that right in subsequent years down to 1900 to come in under the Act of 1892, would you have availed yourself of it? —Yes. 28. What is the value of your improvements now on each section?—On Section No. 17, about £1,200 —198 acres at £6. 29. And the other section? —On Section No. 14, £5 an acre. 30. That is the value you place upon your improvements upon those two sections at the present time I—Yes.1 —Yes. 31. Near your property is there any Native land occupied by the Natives?— There is a Native reserve not far from me on the Mountain Road, nearer Normanby. I believe the area is 640 acres. 32. Do the Natives occupy that land? —I think one or two occupy it, and others lease to various white people at yearly rentals. 33. How much of that land is occupied bj' the Natives approximately, and how much by white people?—l should think there are 500 acres occupied by white people, and about 140 by the Natives. 34. During past years have they occupied more than the 140 acres?— No. 35. Have they always occupied the 140 acres in past years?—No, only of late years —probably the last two years. 36. Now, what condition is that land in that is occupied by the Natives, from the farmer's standpoint?—lt is felled and fenced and grassed. Of course, the fences are practically new, because it was felled by one party some four or five years ago, and it is not in as good a condition as other lands round it by a long way. 37. Why not? —Well, it has been felled in pieces, and there is a certain amount of standing bush and scrub and a few noxious weeds on it as far as I have seen, and parts that the Natives used to crop a little have been left unsown. 38. Is your land suitable for dairying? —One section is not suitable. Neither of them is very suitable. There is a big gully which runs right through the front. 39. In the other section, if you had security of tenure under the Act, would you dairy on part of it? —About 100 acres. That would take about £3 an acre. 40. Do you think it would be an advantage to the land to spend that money upon it and dairy on it ?—Yes, part of it. 41. Cross-examined by Mr. Bell.] Now, you refused, Mr. Best, to come in under the Act of 1892 because the valuation was too high? —That is so. 42. If you had known subsequently that you had the right to convert, you say you would have come in?— Yes. 43. I suppose if the rent was not fixed too high then ?—Yes. 44. If the rent was fixed too high, then you would wait till a later opportunity came, and you would try again and see if the rent was too high then, and go on perpetually till the rent suited you? —Well, of course, we cannot tell. 45. You would have refused if you thought it was too high?— Yes. I would have come in later if I had had the opportunity. 46. If the rent had not been toohigh?—No, I do not say that. 47. The Chairman.'] You say you would have come in later if you had had the opportunity and if the conditions were the same as in 1892 ?—Yes. 48. Mr. Bell.] You would have come in subsequently at the rental of 3s. sd. if you had the opportunity. Of course, land had gone up in value?—We understood we were to be paid for bushfelling, and later on we were not sure of that, but lately I have heard we are. 49. Now, let me turn to the Natives for a moment. I suppose you have had to spend a good deal of money on your place to make it pay?—ln bushfelling and houses, yes. 50. Otherwise it would not have been a paying proposition?— Yes, that is so. 51. Put yourself in the position of the Natives for a moment, without the money to improve, what would you do? Would you sublease, supposing you had taken up a section and could not raise the money to improve it? —I would have had to go out to work. 52. But you would have had to sublease if you could not raise money to improve?—l went out to work and earned my money to improve as I went along. 53. Did you raise any money?—No, I never raised any money. 54. You never had a mortgage on your place at all?— No. I never expended more money than I had. 55. Did you have any money when you took the place up ? —About £50.

29

G.—2.

30

[H. P. BEST.

56. You say that the Natives were not residing on the 140 acres you mentioned till about two years ago ?—Yes, that is about it. 57. Do you know where those Natives came from? —From the Kitimarae Pa.- Of course, they have been cropping small bits of it all the time. 58. They have only got seriously to work during the last two years? —Yes. There are only two on it to my knowledge. 59. Mr. Welsh.] In 1892 you say your rent was fixed at 3s. sd. : what was that based upon, do you know? —No, I cannot tell you that. When Mr. Jones came round and valued he went over the property and fixed his rental. 60. On what value was it based —the improved or unimproved value? —On the unimproved. 61. And what was the rate on the unimproved value?— Five per cent, on the unimproved value. 62. Your rent in 1892, then, was 3s. 5d., being 5 per cent, on the unimproved value? —That is so. 63. Now, if you had been able to come in in 1900, did you expect to come in paying the same rent of 3s. 5d.? If you know now of the right to come in in the year 1900, would you have expected to have paid the same rent? —Yes, to pay up till 1892. 64. The Chairman.] But if you knew in 1900 that you could come in, is your answer that you would expect to come in at 3s. sd. an acre? —Yes, I expected to come in in 1900, and pay arrears up from 1892. 65. Assuming, now, that you knew in 1900 that you could have come in under the Act of 1892, what would your new rent have been? —Well, that I cannot tell you. 66. What rent would you have been prepared to pay? Would you have been prepared to pay 5 per cent, on the unimproved value in 1900? —Yes. 67. Well, why, if you rejected 5 per cent, on the unimproved value in 1892, would you have accepted in 1900 5 per cent, on the unimproved value—it would have been a higher rental? — Because my position then was better than in 1892. 68. Do you mean your financial position? —Yes. 69. And the land, I suppose, had become more valuable?— Yes, the land was more valuable at that time. 70. Mr. Kerr.] Supposing you had known of your right to convert in 1900, would you have accepted a revaluation to have been made in that year 1900? —No, sir. 71. On what valuation, then, do you think your rent should have been based? —On the 1892 valuation. 72. The Chairman.'] Then, you would have been content with the 1892 valuation in 1900? — That is so. 73. But you would not necessarily have been content with a revaluation in 1900? —No, we could not tell what the revaluation would have been. 74. You might have said "No, thank you," as you said before?—l might have said so; it is hard to say. 75. You would have said Yes if they said the 1893 valuation, and you would have reserved to yourself the right to say " No, thank you " in 1900 if they made the revaluation then?— That is so. 76. But if they had said " Well, we will not bother to revalue, but we will give it to you as we offered in 1893," you would have taken it —that is the extent of your answer?— That is so. 77. Mr. Kerr] I understand your meaning to be this : that in 1900 you would have taken a new lease if the rent had been calculated on the basis of the valuation made in 1892, and you would have paid the difference by way of loading between the rent you were paying in 1892 and 1900 ?—Yes. 78. Mr. Welsh.] In 1892 you knew that your new rent would be fixed at 5 per cent, on the unimproved value ?—Yes, that is correct. 79. If you had the right to come in in 1900, you would have known then that your new rent would be fixed at 5 per cent, on the unimproved value?— Yes. 80. Your rights in 1900 would have been to have your new rent assessed at 5 per cent, on the unimproved value. I am speaking of what your new rent would have been from the year 1900 on to the end of the twenty*-one years. If you had come in in 1900 you would have had to surrender your new lease?— That is so. 81. And have had to pay a new rent?— Yes. 82. Are you aware that your new rent would have been 5 per cent, on the unimproved value in 1900? —I did not understand you on that point at first. Yes, I would be prepared to come in on that 1900 valuation to take a new lease. 83. Why would you have been prepared to pay 5 per cent, on a higher valuation in 1900 though you refused 5 per cent, on a lower valuation in 1892 ?—Well, my position then was better in 1900 than in 1892. 84. Mr. Kerr.] Then, you would have been prepared to have paid a higher rent on a revaluation in 1900 than you would have paid had you taken up a lease in 1892? —Yes, sir. 85. And would you still have been prepared to pay the extra loading? Supposing the rent had been fixed at Bs. or 10s. an acre calculated on the basis of the revaluation in 1900, would you still have been prepared to take up the lease on those terms, and have paid the loading over the period between 1892 and 1900?— Yes. 86. Mr. Best, do you remember receiving a registered letter from the Public Trustee or his agent notifying you that the term for conversion had been extended in December, 1898? No. 87 Will you swear you did not receive it?— Yes, I am prepared to swear I never received that letter.

A. NEWELL.j

G.—2.

Arthur Newei,l sworn and examined. (No. 4.) 1. Mr. Welsh.] You are a farmer, and live where? —At Fraser Road, Hawera. 2. You are a lessee under the Act of 1881?— Yes. 3. What is your section?— No. 17, Block 11, Hawera. 4. You are an original lessee? —Yes. 5. Did you take up the land in 1883 or 1885?— In 1883. 6. And you knew of a limit of £5 an acre for your improvements?— Yes. 7. You thought the improvements covered all improvements, but you knew of the limit of £5 ? —Yes. 8. What was your rent? —2s. an acre. 9. And your acreage was what? —200 acres. 10. In what condition was the land when you took it up?— All heavy bush. 11. Did you reside on the land yourself? —Yes. 12. And you got the bush down and grassed the land?— Yes. 13. Are you still living on the section ?—Yes. 14. Approximately, what is the present value of your improvements '] —£6 an acre. 15. Does that include bushfelling, grassing, and everything? —Yes. 16. Did you know of the right of conversion? —Yes. 17. When?—ln 1893, I think. 18. Did you attempt to convert? —Yes. 19. Did you give the notice?— Yes. 20. What prevented the conversion proceeding?— Well, they raised the rent too high. 21. What was your rent fixed at?—3s. 6d. 22. Did you know what that was based upon?— Upon the unimproved value. 23. What percentage on the unimproved value? —Five per cent. 24. It was the same Valuer for all the lessees who applied?—l could not say it was the same — I am not sure. 25. After that time, were you aware that you had subsequent opportunities of conversion ? —No. 26. Right down to the year 1900?— No. 27. You have heard of it since these proceedings have been commenced, have you not?— Yes. 28. In the year 1900, if you had been aware of the right to convert, would you have taken advantage of it? —Yes. 29. Do you know on what basis your rent would have been fixed in 1900?— On 5 per cent, on the unimproved value. 30. We know that in 1892 or 1893 you were aware of your right of conversion? —Yes. 31. But latterly you discovered that seven or eight years after that you again had the right to convert?— Yes. 32. Now, if you had known in the year 1900 that the new rent you would have been asked to pay would have been an increased rental at the rate of 5 per cent, on the unimproved value, would you have taken advantage of it? —Yes. 33. On what year would that 5 per cent, on the unimproved value be based? —In 1900. 34. Would you have been prepared to pay the load, being the difference of rent between 1892 and 1900, to the Public Trustee?— Yes. 35. Why would you have been prepared to pay this additional amount in 1900 if you were not prepared to pay 5 per cent, on a lower basis of valuation in 1892? —Well, I was in a better position. 36. How were you in a better position?—l had more stock, my place was cleared, and 1 was making more money on the place. I could not have paid the rent before. 37. Did you find it difficult in 1892 to pay the rent?— Yes. 38. Did the land pay its own way in 1892? —No. 39. How did you manage?—l borrowed money. 40. For what purposes do you use your land? —For dairying. 41. Does it require further money spent on it to bring it into profitable farming?—l could spend more money on it, and make it more profitable. 42. Say you got a lease under the Act of 1892 now with a better tenure, would you spend moneys upon the land ? —Yes. 43. Can you tell us to what extent you would spend more money?—l would spend £2 to £3 an acre on it still. 44. Do you think it requires that?—Y'es, I do. 45. Cross-examined by Mr. Bell.] What rent were you paying in 1892 when you had the right to convert? —I do not know exactly the date it was reduced, but it was reduced from 2s. to Is. 6d. for a period of five years. 46. Now, supposing you had converted in 1900, what rent would you have expected to pay?— Five per cent, on the unimproved value. 47. At what date? —From 1900 and the time back. 48. Would you have expected the land to be valued in 1900 at 1892 I —The land to be revalued in 1900. 49. Do you know what was the unimproved value of your land in 1900? —I could not tell you. 50. Then, you have no idea of what 5 per cent, on the unimproved value would have amounted to in rent ?—No, I could not say. 51. Do you seriously come here and tell the Commissioners that you would have taken on a contract not knowing what rent you would have to pay? —The rent would not have been more than os. or 6s. an acre.

31

G.—2.

32

[A. NEWELL,

52. That is a guess. Supposing it had turned out that you would have had to pay 125., would you still have converted I —Yes, if I thought I was able to pay it. 53. Do you think you would have been able to pay it in 1900 ?—I do not know whether I could pay 12s. at that time. 54. Supposing the rent had been fixed at 155., would you have been able to take it on then? —No. 55. Then, supposing in 1900 you had applied to convert and your rent had been fixed at 155., would you have refused to convert ?—Yes. 56. Well, how came you to make a different statement that you would have been prepared to pay on a valuation? —I had no idea the unimproved value would have been taken up to that. 57. You mean that if the Valuer had brought in what you considered a reasonable valuation on your land in 1892 you would have converted?— Yes. 58. Just as in 1900, if the Valuer had put a reasonable value on you would have converted? —Yes. Robert Palmer sworn and examined. (No. 5.) 1. Mr. Welsh.] You are a farmer, and live at Fraser Road?— Yes. 2. And you are a lessee under the Act of 1881 1 —Yes. 3. What is the number of your section? —No. 16, Block 11, Hawera. 4. Are you an original lessee? —No. 5. What is the area of your land? —100 acres, at 2s. 6. How long have you had the lease?— Since 1886. 7. What condition was it in when you took it? —With the exception of a little over 2 acres on the side, it was heavy bush. 8. Did you live upon the land yourself?— Yes. 9. And do you still live there? —Yes. 10. All the bush is down now? —Yes, with the exception of one or two small pieces. 11. And all grassed now? —Yes. 12. What is the approximate value of your improvements to-day? —I should say between £7 and £8. 13. Did you ever try to convert?— Yes. 14. In what year?—ln 1892. 15. And you did not proceed?— No. 16. Why not? —Well, I thought at the time that the rent was rather too much. 17. Have you ever heard since then of your right to convert being extended? —No. 18. In 1892 or 1893, when you had the right of conversion, did you know the basis on which the rent was to be fixed? —I really cannot say what they based it on; they looked over the place. I believe it was to be fixed at 5 per cent, on the unimproved value of the place. 19. If you had been able to come in in 1900,, as you had the right to do, on what basis now do you think your rent would then have been fixed ? —1 could not say. 20. The Chairman.] Assume you have only now learnt that you could convert in 1900, on what basis do you think your rent would be fixed as in 1900?— I should say it would be on the valuation. 21. But on what valuation ?—On 1900. 22. Mr. Welsh.] You are now aware you would have had to pay the Public Trustee the difference in the back rent?— Yes. 23. What was your financial position in 1892?—1t was not too good then. 24. Was the land paying its own way?—l doubt if the land was paying its own way. 25. How did you manage to carry on?—I had to work at bushfelling and the likes anywhere I could get work, and I worked on the place itself, cutting firewood and picking fungus. 26. In 1900 what was your position?—l was in a better position then. There were factories started about that time, and we were a little better off. 27. If you had known of the right of conversion in 1900, would you have availed yourself of it?— Yes, I think I would. 28. Would you have been in a better position in 1900 to pay an increased rent than in 1892 to pay a lower rent?— Yes. 29. When did you first hear of the extended right of renewal? —Just recently —within the last month or two. 30. Cross-examined by Mr. Bell.] You know now that if you had converted in 1900 the rent would have been fixed at 5 per cent, on the unimproved value? —Yes. 31. You knew that in 1892 the rent was to be fixed at 5 per cent, on the unimproved value? —Yes. 32. And you decided to convert then if profitable?— Yes. 33. But you decided that the valuation was put too high—that you could not pay 5 per cent, on it?— No. 34. You might have found that to be so in 1900? —I do not know. 35. But you might?— Yes, land had gone up in value. 36. So that your rent would then have been considerably higher?—We had factories there and also a school, which we did not have in 1892. 37. I suppose you know the factories put up the price of land in Taranaki?—Yes, I know that well enough. 38. You understood, I suppose, the terms of your 1881 lease, more or less? —Yes. 39. Did you know your improvements were limited to £5 an acre? —Yes. 40. Then, in 1892 you knew that you only had one year within which to convert?— Yes, T believe it was that.

G.—2.

B. PALMER.]

41. And you refused to convert? —Yes. 42. You decided, therefore, that you were going to remain under the 1881 lease, and you knew that meant that you had not got a perpetual right of renewal? —Yes. 43. Well, if you knew you were only going to get £5 an acre compensation, why did you put on improvements to the value of £7 or £8 an acre?—To make a living off the place. 44. You had to do it? —Yes. 45. Although you knew you were going to lose £2 or £3 an acre when it came to the settling up I—Yes.1 —Yes. 46. But it was profitable to do so? —Yes. William Kelly sworn and examined. (No. 6.) 1. Mr. Welsh.] You are a farmer, living at Stratford? —Yes. 2. You are also an original lessee under the Act of 1881? —Yes. 3. What is your section? —I do not remember; it has been subdivided. I have my lease here, which shows 114 acres, Subdivision 2, Section 13, Block 11, Ngaire. 4. You are an original lessee so far as you are concerned?— Yes. 5. What is your rent? —Is. 6d. per acre. 6. When you went on the land, what condition was it in? —Very heavy bush. 7. Are you still on the land? —Well, no, I am not; I am living on the proceeds of the land; I sublet it. 8. How long have you left it?—lt is getting on for eleven or twelve years. I was compelled to leave it owing to failing sight, or I should have continued on it. 9. What is the value of your improvements on it now? —I put them at £8 an acre. 10. When you took up the lease originally, what did you understand to be the conditions on which the land was let to you?—l understood that I would have it for a term of thirty years, and that if I had to part with it at any time that I would be paid for all my improvements at the expiration of my lease if I did not get a renewal. 11. You say you would be paid for all your improvements?— That was my impression always. 12. Did you understand there was any limit? —No, I did not understand that. 13. Can you tell me what year you went on to the land?—l went there in 1886. I think I took it up in July. Six months had really elapsed when I took it up. 14. Are there any other lessees near you? —Yes. 15. On Public Trustee leases —similar land? —Yes. 16. At that time were there any?— Yes, I believe there was one or two. There were not many on the land then under the 1881 leases. 17. When did you first hear of your right of conversion on this lease to a lease under the Act of 1892? —I should say from two to three years ago. I never heard anything of it before. 18. How came it about that you heard of it then ?—I only heard by other people knowing it. 19. What brought it to your notice then? —I heard about those people on the Plains going to Wellington, and I paid attention to what I heard. I heard that there had been a right of conversion granted in 1892. I heard that from several parties. I think I heard it for the first time about a couple of years ago. 20. If you had been aware in the year 1900 that you were not to be paid for all improvements at the end of the term except to the extent of £5 an acre, and if you had been aware that in 1900 you could have got rid of the old lease and taken a new lease, and that by the terms of the new lease you were to be paid full compensation for all improvements, and that your rent was to be fixed at 5 per cent, on the unimproved value in 1900, and that you were to pay the Public Trustee the difference in rent from the year 1892 till the year 1900 as between the old lease and the new lease, would you have considered the o t uestion of surrendering yoiir lease and coming in under the Act of 1892?—1f I had the opportunity in 1900, then I would have come in under the Act of 1892 and the same valuation as 1892. 21. No, not the valuation of 1892? —I do not know that I would have, because I do not know what my valuation would have been. I have lost all my papers, and I do not know what my valuation was in 1900. The valuation has been going up at a very rapid rate. This piece of land is in Stratford, and it is looked upon as high-class land. Ido not know what it would have been valued at, but I believe I would have taken it at the valuation of 1892. 22. Neither in 1892 nor in 1900 were you aware of the right to convert?—No, I was never aware of it. 23. What is the value of your improvements on the land now? —£8 an acre. 24. The date of the subdivision of the original lease is 4th November, 1901 ?—Yes. Mr. Bell: No questions. Charles Andbews recalled. (No. 7.) 1. The Chairman.] I understand you desire to amend your evidence in regard to your having read the lease when you signed it? —Yes, I should like to correct that. 2. What is the correction?—l want to say that I did not read it. Mr. Rennell read it over to me. I was no scholar, and I did not thoroughly understand it till I got home and my wife read it to me several times, and then I began to understand it. 3. And then you say you discovered it was not in exactly the same terms as Mr. Rennell represented to you?— Yes. After I had taken the lease home I discovered that. I did not understand it when Mr. Rennell read it to me.

5—G. 2.

33

G.—2.

34

[C. ANDREWS.

4. Mr. Bell.'] Why did you, in answer to Mr. Welsh as to why you signed the lease, say that you signed it knowing that it did not contain the contract which you entered into, and that if you made any complaints you would not get the lease at all?— Because I had spent a lot of money, and 1 knew once I had signed the lease I would have to go on with it. 5. You now say you did not read the lease before you signed it? —Mr. Rennell read it over to me, but I did not understand it until my wife read it over to me. 6. You did not make any complaint about it then?—No, because I had signed it. 7. That was not your explanation before? —I had spent a lot of money on the land and had signed the lease, and I knew it was no good going back. 8. You thought you would not go back on your word? —Yes. 9. Why did you not give us that explanation before?— Because it was not put to me. I thought I would lose the money I had spent on the land. 10. When you were asked that question about not complaining you did not say anything about not going back on your word. The only explanation you gave was that you were afraid of losing your improvements?— Yes. 11. Not a word about having signed the lease and not wanting to go back on your word. Why did you not give the Commission that explanation? —It amounts to the same thing. 12. Is that what you tell the Commission —that losing money and going back on your word is the same thing?—l knew it was no good going back to Mr. Rennell when I had spent a lot of money and after I had signed the lease. 13. Mr. Kerr.] It was that same night after you left Mr. RennelPs that your wife explained it to you?—l do not say it was the same may have been a few days after. 14. In connection with such a transaction, that was the time for you to have gone and asked Mr. Rennell for an explanation ?—Well, I cannot say why I did not. 15. The Chairman.] You want to say that when you signed the lease it was read over to you by Mr. Rennell, but you did not understand it until your wife read it to you?— Yes, that is so. Edwin Reuben Hastib sworn and examined. (No. 8.) 1. Mr. Welsh.] You are a lessee under the West Coast Settlement Act, 1881 ?—Yes. 2. What is your section? —No. 33, Block 11, Waimate, containing 500 acres. 3. Your lease expired when? —In July, 1909. 4. And the land was reoffered at auction after that? —Yes. 5. And you are the successful lessee?— Yes. 6. Now, in reference to the original lease, how did j r ou acquire that, and what was the rent under the old lease? —The first seven years it was Is. an acre, the next seven 25., and the third seven ss. an acre. 7. What year did you acquire it? —In 1897. 8. And the rent at that time was what?—2s. 9. And it rose to ss. in what year?—l9o2. 10. From whom did you acquire the lease? —Mr. Alexander Milne. 11. What did he' represent to you as the conditions of the lease? —It came out in the course of conversation. I had offered a price for another farm, and some one had overbid me. 1 was telling him. about it, and he said, " I will sell you my west coast lease of 500 acres, with the conditions of full compensation for improvements and the right of renewal by arbitration on the unimproved value." 12. The Chairman.] All you had was his word for that? —Yes, that was a conversation on the road. 13. Mr. Welsh.] Did he tell you how long the term had to run? —Yes, so much at 2s 14. Did he tell you how many years the lease had to run?— Twelve years. 15. What did you do? —I consulted my father, and we both went over it and thoroughly examined it. Milne at the time asked £2,350 for it, and we valued the improvements at just about what he was asking. 16. I want you to tell me how you valued the improvements at the time you inspected them? —I valued the bushfelling and grassing at £2 an acre, house at £500, a good barn and stable at £200, orchard and plantation at £100, and fencing at £1 an acre, £500. 17. You made it £2,300? —Yes. 18. And what was Milne asking for it? —£2,350. 19. And how much did you pay him? —£2,200. 20. .Tell the Commission how the matter of finance was arranged?—ln the first place, my my account at the bank, and the lease went straight into the bank as security. The bank not only had the lease, but they had my father's guarantee. 21. After you had taken possession of the place, did you make any further improvements to the property?— Yes. 22. What was the gross amount of additional improvements made by you on the property up to the end of your term at your own valuation? —The improvements would be about another couple of thousand pounds. 23. On top of what you paid Milne?— Yes. 24. Now, valuations were made in terms of your lease between you and the Public Trustee fixing the value of those improvements?— Yes. 25. What did the arbitrators fix your improvements at?—£3,339. I was brought up a farmer, and I farmed this land to the best of my ability, and improved it, and what I complained of mostly was that I had spent £700 or £800 on manure which they never gave me one penny value for, and that manure was in the land, and made it look much better when I left.

E. R. HASTIE.J

35

G.—2.

26. When you purchased from your predecessor, what did he say to you as to his lessee's right to convert at any time? Did Milne say anything to you?— Milne made no representation to me about converting. 27. When did you first hear of this right of conversion that the lessees had?— The first intimation I had was from Mr. Fisher. 28. Can you say what year that was? —It was somewhere in 1905. 29. When did he say you had that right up till?—He told me till 1900. He told me five years after the right expired. 30. That was the first you knew of the lessee's right of conversion? —Yes, the first year that I had any intimation of my position. 31. What did you do when you heard from Mr. Fisher what your position had been? —I went straight to the bank to see my lease. Then I found out that I had to go up to public auction or public tender for my lease at the end of my term. 32. Were you surprised to find that? —Yes, I was surprised. 33. Why were you surprised to find -that your lease had to go up to public tender at the end of the term? —Because I thought I had the right of renewal at the end of the term by arbitration. 34. What did you do?—I went to Wellington after that, and consulted Mr. Poynton, the Public Trustee. 35. When you acquired the land from Mr. Milne what improvements did you think you were to be paid for I —For all my improvements. 36. And between the time you purchased and the termination of your lease, how much money did you spend in improvements?—l consider I spent about £2,000. 37. And they were valued at about £1,000? —Yes. 38. Now, if you had been aware in 1897, when you obtained your lease, that you were not to be paid for all your improvements, but that there was a limit of £5, would you have spent that additional £1,000 or £2,000 upon improving your land?— Certainly not. 39. Could the farming operations as conducted by you at that time have continued without the expenditure of that money ?—Yes. 40. You are now aware that up to the year 1900 you, as a lessee, had a right to surrender your lease and convert it into a lease under the Act of 1892 ? —Yes, I am now aware of it. 41. And you are pretty conversant with the terms under which you could have converted? —Yes. 42. Have you made a calculation based upon the valuation of the year 1901 ? —Yes. 43. The Government valuation of 1901?— Yes. I discovered there was a Government valuation in 1892, and the only Government valuation till 1901. 44. Your calculations have been based upon the valuation of 1901?— Yes. 45. Do you remember the circumstances of that valuation? Was there much difference between that valuation and the preceding valuation? —A great difference. That was the time of the trouble on the plains over the size of the valuations, and a great many objected to the valuation, and held a sitting of the Court at Manaia. 46. Those are the figures you are taking?— That is the valuation I am taking it on. 47. Taking your calculation upon the high valuation of 1901, had' you been aware of your position in 1900, would you have converted? —I would. 48. You would have expected to get better terms, but you would have gone in on the 1901 valuation? —Yes, certainly. 49. Now, in round figures, what would it have cost you to convert? —About £1,300 in 1909. That includes the loading and the higher rent up to the end of my lease. 50. At that time your improvements were not worth over the £5 per acre?— No. 51. In 1897, when you purchased, your improvements were how much? —I valued them at the £2,300. That is a little over £4 10s. per acre. 52. Between that year and 1900, what further improvements had you put upon the land? —Just the stumping. 53. Were you dairying at that time? —No. 54. When did you go in for dairying? —About 1902 or the end of 1901. 55. In what years were the additional improvements that you have told us about placed upon the land? —About the end of 1901 or the beginning of 1902. 56. For what purposes?— For dairying. 57. If you had converted in 1900 it would have cost you how much? —£1,300. 58. Now, your improvements that you would have been fully paid for at the end of the term consisted of how much in excess of the £5 ? —About £3 an acre. At the end of my lease my valuation would come nearer £4, and the Public Trust valuation was £2. That was in July, 1909. 59. Now, in 1900, when you might have converted if you had known, what was the total value of your improvements? —Just about the £5. 60. The dairying made all the difference to your improvements? Yes; I had to make smaller paddocks and put up more buildings. 61. To farm that land properly now as a dairy farm, what does it require?—lt would require a further expenditure of about £2,000. 62. Tell me how you arrive at that? —There is about 200 acres of bush land on it in its rough state —perhaps a little under —and it will cost me £5 an acre more to bring that under the plough and lay it down in good sown grass. That is equal to about £1,000. Then there are about 427 chains of wire fencing which wants to be turned into box-thorn fences. 63. Why? —We have no timber now to deal with the fencing, and we have to turn all the fences into box-thorn. We cannot get a decent post under Is. 6d. We have all got to do it.

G.—2.

[E. B. HASTIE.

64. What else? —There are three sheds I have to pave and concrete, which is very necessary under the Dairy Regulations. Those will cost me £100 each. 65. Of course, you have twenty-one years to run?— Yes, or eighteen years now. To prove my statement in this matter, I would invite the members of the Commission and all concerned in the matter to come out on to the farm, and I will personally demonstrate that my statements are perfectly correct. The bush land is absolutely run out, and the place has got to be stumped and renewed. .66. Is there anything further for improvements?—l should lay down two rams, which would cost about £150. 67. Did you ever have any advance made to you by any of the Government lending departments ?—Yes. 68. What amount did you receive from them? —My father died at the end of 1905, and 1 had to lift my guaranteed account, and I went to the Advances to Settlers Department and raised £2,000 on my lease. 69. On what security? —The lease. 70. Any other security? —No. 71. Can you speak of your own knowledge of any lands owned by the Natives under lease by them from the Public Trustee? —Yes, plenty. 72. What areas can you speak of? —I know one white man who has got just about 2,000 acres. 73. Can you speak of your own knowledge of the farming done by Natives on the land in your district? —Yes, some Natives are on the land. There are a few supplying milk to the Kaupokonui Dairy Company. 74. How are they farming their lands? Have you been on their lands? —No, I have not, but I have frequently passed their lands. Most of their lands are farmed by Europeans. 75. But I am speaking of the lands farmed by Natives themselves? —There are two or three on the Glen Road opposite to me who are fawning their lands fairly well, although they are not particular in regard to noxious weeds. lam alluding to land which has been individualized, and they are living on it. The Native land which has not been individualized and on which they are not living is absolutely covered with noxious weeds. 76. What land is that you are speaking of? —The Pa land. 77. And how much of that land is there?— There is not a big quantity of it. It is generally leased to Europeans. 78. I am speaking of land that is harbouring noxious weeds : what quantity is there of that? —There are different areas in different places. They have got the Pa lands partly individualized now, and they are fencing them off. 79. Since 1897 have you resided on this land of yours?— Yes. 80. It has been your home? —Yes; I got married after I got the place, and my wife and family are still there. 81. You sublet portions of it? —Yes, but I have kept part of it for my home. 82. Since your new lease? —Yes. 83. Gross-examined by Mr. Bell.] And why did you sublet? —I have sublet purely and simply to get out of the position I am in at the present time —to get under the Act of 1892, so that I can give it all my time. 84. So as to employ your time in what ? —ln converting the lessees out of the position they are in at the present time, which we are prepared to pay for. 85. For agitating on behalf of the lessees? —I am not agitating. 86. What word would you suggest? —I refer to an agitator as one who goes to the newspaper; that is one thing we have not done. 87. I think you said you purchased the lease from Mr. Milne? —Yes. 88. Do you know that Mr. Milne had applied to convert?—l know now. 89. Did you know then? —No. 90. I do not know whether you are aware that the reason he did not convert was for the same reason as that given by the lessees this morning—that the rent was too high?— No. 91. I think you appeared and gave evidence before the Lands Committee?—l did. 92. You and a Mr. Poole represented the lessees. You have been a most active person?— For the reason that my lease was the second that fell in, Mr. Tinkler's being the first. 93. All your representations before the Lands Committee were based on the fact that the lessees had been misled by the form of their leases? —Yes, that is so. 94. And you never saw your lease at all? —I saw my lease the day it came out of the bank in 1897, when my father and I went into Hawera to pay over the money. 95. And you took the lease out then, in 1897? —I saw the lease then for the first time. 96. The Chairman.] Will j'ou distinguish between seeing the lease and perusing it: did you simply see the lease or did you peruse it? —I saw the lease. 97. Then you did not peruse it? —No. 98. Mr. Bell.] Then you were not misled by it at that time?—l was misled by the lease. 99. You did not see it till 1897, and then you did not read it?—lf you will kindly permit me to answer that, my father was bidding for this land for me, and the lease was produced and then went back into the bank again. 100. The Chairman.] Did you peruse that lease? —No, I did not. 101. Mr. Bell.] Then, you were not misled by it then?— No. If you put it that way I was not misled by the lease in 1897. 102. You had not seen it before then? —No, I had not got the place. 103. Some time after 1897 you had not been misled by the lease?—l bought my place in February, 1897.

36

E. R. HASTIE. |

37

G.—2.

104. The Chairman,.'] When you bought it you got this lease? —Yes. 105. You said two or three times that you saw the lease, and you say you did not peruse it, and then Mr. Bell said that you could not have been misled by it I—l1 —I understood him to say that up till 1897 1 was not misled by the lease. 106. Mr. Bell.] In 1905, I think you told us, you had a conversation with Mr. Fisher? —Yes, that is correct. 107. And that caused you to go down to the bank and look at the lease? —Yes. 108. Was that the first time you had thoroughly looked over the lease? —That was the first time I had thoroughly looked through the lease. 109. So that you cannot say you were misled by the lease before that? —It was through my own ignorance in the matter or my simplicity; I relied purely and simply on my father. He paid for the land, and the lease came out of the bank into his hand and went back into the bank. 110. Do you say that you were yourself misled by the lease in anything you did before? —I understood I was to be paid for my improvements, and had a perpetual right of renewal. 111. When you saw the lease you understood what it meant? —I understood that I had to go to public tender for my lease. 112. If you had understood that much of the lease when you took up the land would you have put the improvements that you did on the place?— No. 113. So that any loss that may have been caused by putting any improvements on the place was due to your own carelessness ? —lf you put it that way, I suppose it would be —through my own innocence. 114. Now, in regard to the lending, you say that the Government lending departments made a mistake, and that they lent you more than they ought to on the place?— According to the Act they have. 115. When did you get the loan from them? —In February, 1906. 116. Then the Government lending department's action did not prejudice you, because you had then been in possession for several years. Whatever mistake they made was to your advantage? —To my benefit, I admit. 117. I suppose the goodwill of your lease was worth something at that time? —No, I do not think I could have got anything for the goodwill at that time. Tinkler's case came on directly after that. My lease was coming to the end of its term. 118. But when the Government lending department lent you that money Tinkler's case had not been decided? —No, that is true. 119. The actual goodwill is to be calculated on the rent: what rent were you paying at that time? —I was paying ss. 120. What rent do you calculate you ought to have paid at ss. on the unimproved value at that time?—l made it up on the valuation of 1901 that I should have been paying £192 10s. instead of £125. 121. Was it you who told the Lands Committee that you had been advised to appeal against Tinkler's case? —No, I never told the Committee that I was advised to appeal. We have never gone into law that way. You mean, to appeal through the Court? 122. Yes?—No, I never made that statement. 123. You and Mr. Poole were representing ths lessees?— Yes. 124. Now, evidence was given before that Committee that you had been advised to appeal: do you remember that? —No, I did not give that evidence. 125. Do you remember the evidence being given? —No. 126. Here is the evidence of Mr. Welsh : " I say without fear of contradiction that this is an honest petition by honest men. We have been advised to go to the Court of Appeal, but the petitioners' money has been spent in many ways." Now, were you aware, Mr. Hastie, that the particular question in Tinkler's case raised two or three questions? —Yes. 127. Only one is of importance for the present case: are you aware that the counsel acting for the lessees at that time admitted that they were unable to argue that point as to the nature of the improvements? [Mr. Welsh objected to the question as not being one for the witness to answer.] 128. The Chairman.] Did you or did you not know at the time there was some talk of an appeal that Mr. Skerrett had said it was not arguable?—l knew that it was answered in the negative. 129. Mr. Bell.] What rent are you paying now?—l6s. 6d. 130. Is that an excessive rent? —It was the full unimproved rent at the time. It was what was intended by the Act of 1892 —5 per cent, on the full unimproved value. 131. Except for the fact that you have not got a permanent right of renewal, your position is all right at present; you are not paying an excessive rent, but the full rent on the unimproved value? —Yes. 132. Let me remind you of an argument you yourself used before the Lands Committee. You said : " I might state this to show how unjust it is to the settler: the place is put up to public auction after the upset rent is put on it, and then any one can come along and run you up as high as they like. The Native owner can come along and ruin you. No matter what you have spent on the farm, no matter what it is you have on it, associations or anything of that sort, you have made it your home and perhaps intend to live there all your lifetime, but the Native owner can come along and run you up in the bidding to a price that you cannot touch. He is taking it out of one pocket and putting it into another. That is the position the 133 lessees arc in at the present time "1 —Yes, and I still say that. 133. Your own experience does not show it? —I would not ask my worst enemy to be placed in the position I was over my lease.

Or.—2.

38

[E. R. HASTIE.

134. But your own experience does not show that that is the case?—My own experience does show it. 135. What is the result of your experience? Are you paying an excessive rent? —I am not, but there is no reason to suppose for a moment that I would not have been. I had to go there and face the public. 136. The But then you are saying the theory is considerably worse than the practice?—My trouble is that I do not want to practise it again. 137. But you seemed very contented with it just now. You say that you admit 16s. 6d. is a fair rent? —I admit that. 138. Mr. Bell.] In 1898 did you get any circular from the Public Trust Office? —I am positive I did not. 139. How long have you been a director of the Kaupokonui Dairy Company?— Nine years. I am not a director at the present time —I am out of office. 140. You have always taken an interest in the district, I suppose?— Yes. 141. You read the papers?— Yes, I read the papers. 142. You have read the papers ever since you have been on the farm?— Yes. 143. And you never saw any advertisement in the Hawera Star with reference to the conversion of these leases I —No, I have not. 144. Nor in any other paper?—No, nor in any other paper. 145. You would see the other lessees about and discuss matters of general interest with them? — There are a few in my district —not many. 146. Have you not had any conversation with them before 1900 as to the right to convert? —No. 147. You know that many of the lessees had converted in 1892?— I know now. 148. Did you not know when you took the lease up?—l was away from the plains for three or four years, and this may have been on while I was away. 149. When your father died the Public Trustee was his executor?— No. 150. Well, you were, and you handed it over to the Public Trustee?—-Yes. 151. Did the Public Trustee pay to the bank the overdraft on your father's guarantee?—No, I think I arranged it myself. There was a certain amount which went against my portion of the estate. I fixed that by all but £900, and the Public Trustee paid the £900. 152. And you got an advance? —That was paid off, and £900 left. The Public Trustee paid that off for me when he took over the estate. 153. The Public Trustee, as executor of your father's estate, and to which you were indebted, assisted you as much as possible to get you out of a hole? —Yes, he paid over the £900, which was part of my portion of the estate. 154. Mr. Welsh.] And you have always found the Public Trustee ready to help you at any time?—l may say that I have always been treated by the Public Trustee with the greatest courtesy at all times. I cannot speak too highly of Dr. Fftchett and Mr. Poynton in regard to what they have done, and also in regard to Mr. Zachariah. I cannot speak too highly of the Public Trust Office and the Advances to Settlers Department. 155. You are aware now that if you had the right of conversion under the Act of 1892 you would have a very considerable sum of money to pay? —Yes. 156. And you have told Mr. Bell that you are not quarrelling about the amount of the rent?— No, I want to get out of the position I am in. 157. What advantage do you want, then, in coming under the Act of 1892? What is it you look for? —I look to have a perpetual lease, so that 1 can call the place my home. My farm requires a terrible lot more money spent on it. It has to be spent on it, and I want to secure myself in that respect. I am not quarrelling over the amount of back-loading, but I will pay that willingly in order to get out of my present position. The Commission adjourned till Wednesday, 15th May, at Opunake.

y '■ . - Opunake, Wednesday, 15th Mat, 1912. Thomas Pole Hughson sworn and examined. (No. 9.) 1. Mr. Welsh.] What are you?—A storekeeper. 2. And I think you are a J. P. ?—Yes. 3. Were you a lessee of certain land under the Act of 1881? —Yes, Section 19, Block V, Cape Survey District. 4. Who was the original lessee? —Myself and a cousin, both Thomas Hughson. 5. Who entered into possession of the land originally?—l did. 6. What was your rent?—£l6 16s. 7. How many acres? —112 acres 8. Was it bush or open land? —Tt was covered in tutu and flax and other stuff of that kind, but only a small quantity of bush. 9. That is, 3s. an acre? —Yes. 10. What did you understand to be the terms of jour lease when you took it up? —I understood that the terms were for thirty years, and that at the end of thirty years it would be put up to auction again or public tender, and that all the improvements were to be paid for up to £5 per acre.

39

G.—2.

T. P. HUGHSON. j

11. How long did you and your cousin remain owners of the lease? —About two years, I think. 12. And what happened then? —My brother Charles Hughson took over my cousin's share, joining partnership with me. 13. What year was that?— About 1884, I think. lam not quite certain of the date. 14. Well, after that what happened regarding the land? —My brother and I remained in ownership and worked the land for four or five years, and things were so bad that my brother said he would not stand it any longer, and that he would give it up. I pointed out to him that if we gave it up at that juncture we would certainly lose all we had put into it, and I decided I would take the responsibility on myself, giving him a promissory note for his share, to be paid when I was in a position to do so. When I had paid my brother his share both the interests were transferred to my wife. 15. What year was that in?—l. think it was in 1890, but I am not sure about the date. The reason for transferring to my wife at that time was that by the Act we were prevented from acquiring any further land unless it was attached to the section which we had. If there was a section between we were debarred from taking it up. Consequently I thought as the family grew they might require a little more land, and I decided that a transfer to my wife at once would enable me to take up another section under the Act in another part. 16. Mr. Eerr.] Were you not in error in that? Was it not only your holding 640 acres of land? —No, we could not take another section unless it was joined. If it was joined we could take up 640 acres. 17. Mr. Welsh.] After the land was transferred to Mrs. Hughson, how was the land used? —It was farmed by us on the same principle—milking and farming in the usual way. 18. Who managed it?—l did. 19. Who paid the rent?— Well, it was practically paid by the proceeds. 20. What has become of the lease since; is it still in your wife's name? —Yes, still in my wife's name. 21. Are you living on the land still? —No, we have a family milking, on shares. 22. Did you ever live on the land?— Yes; I lived on it all the time up till within the last ten years. 23. And since then, how has it been used? —For dairying and fanning generally. 24. By whom?—By me. 25. Who farms it now?—l do. Of course, I have a man working on it milking, on shares —a Mr. Vincent. 26. And that has been so for the last ten years?—No, about five years. In the interval I was running coach-horses on it. 27. Has it ever been leased by you to anybody else? —No. 28. And you have been in continuous occupation of the land from the beginning?— Yes. 29. And how far is }'our residence from the land?— Twelve miles. The land is this side of Okato, near the toll-gate. 30. How long have you been living at Eahotu? —About ten years. 31. You have told us that when you took possession of the land first of all it was covered in tutu, fern, and flax? —Yes, we could ride through on horseback without being seen. 32. What improvements have you done to the land?—l have ploughed and grassed every bit of it, with the exception of about 5 acres. It is all cleared and ploughed and fenced and subdivided, with a good house on it. 33. Can you tell the Commission what you value your improvements at to-day upon the land? —Roughly, I value the improvements at £5 10s. as now existing. 34. Were you aware at any time that you had the right to convert that lease into a lease under the Act of 1892 ?—Yes. 35. When did you first become aware of that? —About 1893 —the beginning of 1893. 36. Did you take any steps to do so after you became aware of it? —I inquired with regard to the conditions, and looked carefully into the matter, and after considering it I could not see my way clear to finance the conversion. 37. Did you estimate what it would cost you to convert?—l could only do that roughly. I considered it would have cost me nearly £200, and I was not aware that there was any provision for spreading that amount over a period. I understood it all had to be put down, and I could not do so. 38. How did you arrive at your estimate of £200?— I considered the amount of improvements that had to be put down and the extra back rent that would have to be paid up. 39. You were anticipating what the future rent would be?— Yes, and that it would cost so much that it was better not to do so at the time. 40. What were your improvements at that time?— About the same value as they are now. 41. Did you estimate you would have to pay the Public Trustee any sum for improvements? ■ —Yes, I considered there would be a certain amount, but I did not know how the value would go. 42. Are you clear when it wa3 that you made those computations and considered your position in regard to conversion and determined not to avail yourself of the right?— Yes, I feel quite clear on the point that it was when the Act was brought in. 43. After that time did you become aware of any subsequent rights of conversion?—No, I have no recollection except the once. I had the idea that twelve months was given, and that that was final, and that if we did not convert at that time that we ceased to have a chance. I do not recollect any subsequent chances. 44. It is stated that registered letters were sent to the lessees in 1898 informing them that their rights of conversion had been further extended down to the year 1900? —I have no recollection whatever of receiving any circular whatever, and when the meeting was held here it came as a great surprise to me that we had three chances of conversion.

G.—2.

[t. p. hughson.

45. You received no notice or letter? —No. 46. The notice would not go to you; it would go to your wife as lessee? —Yes, but all those communications are handed over to me —they go through my hands. 47. Your wife is not giving evidence here to-day?— No. 48. Why not?— Well, she is not very well, and she is not conversant with the matter at all. I have transacted the business right through. 49. Had you been aware of your rights to convert in 1898 and 1900, do you think you would have availed yourself of it?—l think so. I had made my position stronger by that time, and I am pretty well certain that I would have converted at that time had I known in 1900. 50. You now know the terms on which you could have converted at that time? —Yes, I suppose so. 51. And do you still think you would have availed yourself of the right at that time had you been aware of it?— Yes, I think so. 52. Now, can you speak of your own knowledge of lands which the Natives have the right to occupy in your district? —Yes. All the lands on the opposite side of the road are occupied practically by Natives, but there are some that are sublet. I myself have 20 acres from the man who owns the property on which 1 am on the opposite side of the road. 53. What would be the acreage of the Native land that you are speaking of that the Natives have the right to occupy? —I could not say the acreage, but there is a considerable quantity. Making a very rough guess, I should say there is about 500 acres in that vicinity right up to the bush. 54. Who occupies that land? —Several Maoris. I have 20 acres directly opposite this section, and I have 85 in Pungarehu, under occupation license. That is with the consent of the Public Trustee, for a period of four years. 55. Do you still ask for the right to come in under the Act of 1892 ?—Yes. 56. And you would be prepared to pay back rent?— Yes, I am prepared to pay in accordance with the Bill which I understand was brought down in connection with this matter. 57. You ask that on behalf of your wife? —Yes. 58. The land is dairying land?— Yes. 59. Does it require any further improvements?—No, it does not; it is in good order. 60. It is sufficiently improved as a dairy farm? —Yes. 61. Mr. Kerr.] What back rent are you willing to pa}^?—According to the Bill that was drafted, the valuation of 1900 to 1912 —the unimproved value at 1900. 62. You would not be prepared to pay on a valuation made now?—l would be prepared to pay anything on a reasonable basis to secure a permanent tenure. 63. Would you be prepared to pay the back rent on that basis? —I have not considered the matter from that standpoint. 64. Would you be prepared to consider it? —Yes, I would be prepared to consider it. 65. Gross-examined by Mr. Bell.] What you mean is that you would be prepared to take it on if it showed a profit and put you in a better position ? —As long as it did not go too far and cost too much, I would be prepared to take it up to get the right of renewal. 66. When you took the lease up you say you understood the conditions were that the improvements were to be limited to £5 an acre? —Yes, 1 understood that. 67. And you knew it was going to be put up to public auction at the end of the term? — Yes. I might explain that there was this idea in my mind, and also in the minds of other people : that when this Act of 1881 was brought down by Sir Harry Atkinson, who was the member for the district, there was practically a promise given by him that this was a preliminary Act, and that after a while the lessees would be able to secure the freehold. He intended to bring down legislation in that way, and consequently that caused us to hold on, as it were, until certain defects were removed; and we were prepared to take up the land in the hope of that being accomplished. 68. You knew the contract you were entering into, but you thought later on something might be done for you, but you knew that unless something was done to alter it the lease would be put up to auction at the end of the term?— Yes, I knew that. I can hardly say I knew the contract I was entering into—experience only taught me that. 69. You knew those facts and you were prepared to take the contract on?— Yes, and I did take it on. 70. If the 1892 Act had not been passed you would have had no cause of complaint?— Yes, we were complaining, and it was in consequence of that that the 1892 Act came in. 71. You were complaining that you had made a bad bargain?— Yes. 72. And a good bargain had been made on behalf of the Maoris? —Yes. 73. And when the 1892 Act came in it was a better bargain for some of the lessees, and consequently a worse one for the Maoris? —No, Ido not think so. The whole thing is a good thing for the Maoris. Owing to the benefits accruing from the roading of the district, and the factories being established, it would pay the Maoris to give the Europeans the land for the benefits which they obtain to their other land. By the pakeha coming in it improved their lands, and provided facilities for placing the produce on the market. 74. The Chairman] Supposing you had a lease from a pakeha, would that same argument hold?— Yes, practically the same, I think, in connection with the Government. 75. Mr. Bell.] You say the Maoris were the gainers by getting the pnkeha on the land, but they had already got him on the land under the Act of 1881 ?—Partly. 76. Without any right of conversion they had occupied the land? —A small portion of the land. 77. When they had the chance of conversion the land was already occupied?— Yes under the 1881 Act.

40

G.—2.

T. 1 , . HUGHSON.i

78. The conversion part of the 1892 Act only applied to lands of which the pakeha was already in possession ? —That is so. 79. Xow, knowing your improvements were going to be limited to £5 an acre, why did you bring them np to £5 10s. ?—To enable me to work the thing satisfactorily. The Dairy Act provided that I had to put down concrete floors and a good shed. 80. Although you knew you were going to lose 10s. an acre, it paid you to put in the extra 10s. ? —I had to do so or I would have been brought to book about it. 81. You gave the Commission an explanation of why you sold to your wife?—i'es. 82. Now, tell me, did you sell to your wife before or after she took up that other piece of land under the 1892 Act?— She had no land under the 1892 Act. 83. Well, she took up another piece of land? —No. 84. Who took up the piece on the other side of the road—the 6-10 acres? —I did —20 acres. 85. I understand there was another piece of land that was applied for and u'ot, of 640 acres? —No. 86. You did actually apply for more land?— Yes. 87. Did you get it ?—Yes,'under the 1892 Act. 88. Had you already transferred to your wife the other land? —Yes. 89. And what was the size of the block you applied for and took up? —153 acres. 90. You knew of the right of conversion in 1893? —Yes. 91. And you looked into the matter?— Yes. 92. And you say it would have cost you £200 to convert? —Yes. 93. How did you make that estimate up? —I could not exactly say how the estimate was made up. It was partly made up of what it would cost in the difference in rent in the future. 94. Give us some rough figures of how you made it up?— There would be a certain amount for extra improvements. 95. How much for that? —£56, and the difference in the rent. 96. There was no back rent to pay?— No. I thought it would be increased by 2s. an acre. 97. How long or over what period were you taking that into consideration? —From 1892 to 1914. There would be other expenses in connection with fixing up the lease and the meeting of owners. 98. What did you put for that?— About £10. 99. And anything else?—No, I do not know of anything else. 100. If you*work it out at that it comes to £270?— Yes. 101. Of which only £70 would have to be put down? —Yes. I was not in a position at that time to put down £20. 102. So that you said to yourself " I cannot afford to do it, so I am going to stay on under the 1881 Act." You thought the lease would go up to auction at the end of the term? —No, I did not anticipate that; I anticipated practically getting the freehold. 103. That if you hung on and did not come under the Act of 1892 something further would be done for you? —I did at the time. 104. You thought you could do better? —I could not do it at the time; I was not in a financial position to do it. J have here a statement showing that the income from the farm was £41, out of which I had to pay rent. The result after buying and selling in five years gave us an amount of £8 to credit. 105. You said you could not afford to come under the 1892 Act, and so you had to stick to your bargain?— Yes. 106. What complaint have you got now : you had your chance and you could not avail yourself of it, and you said to yourself " I have to stick to my bargain "I —l had the one chance of conversion, and I was not aware of other chances when I was able to take advantage of it, and consequently I have every reason to get another chance. I only knew of one chance of conversion, and I learned at a meeting in Opunake about a month ago that there were three, and consequently I think I have the right to have another one. 107. You say you think you would have converted in 1900 if you had known? —Yes. 108. What were the conditions on which you could convert in 1900?— The conditions were similar, only to go back to 1892. 109. You say you think you would have converted on the terms which would have been open to you in 1900 : what terms were open to you then?—l know now that the same terms were offered as in 1892—the same terms as in 1892 were extended to 1900. 110. You would be paying the same rent as if you had come in under the Act of 1892? —Yes, I take it. 111. And would you have had to put up any money? —Yes. 112. What? —There was the back rent to 1892 and the improvements in excess. 113. Anything else?—l do not know of anything else. I may be wrong about the back rent. 114. Do you not think, before you came and made the statement to the Court that you would have converted, that you should have taken the trouble to find out the terms on which you could have converted? —If 1 had known there was a chance of conversion I should have taken the trouble, but when I did not know of it how was I to take the trouble. 115. You come here and tell the Court that if you had known in 1900 of your right to convert, then you would have converted? —Yes. 116. But you do not know now what the terms of conversion in 1900 were?— Yes. 117. But you have told us, and you are wrong?— That does not alter the circumstances of the case. 118. Do you mean to say it does not alter your answer? You said distinctly to the Commission that if you had known of the opportunity in 1900 to convert you would have done so,

6-a. 2.

41

G.—2.

42

|T. P. HUGHSON.

yon thought2 —As far as I understood the terms. There was the amount of extra improvements to be put down, and with the valuation to be taken at the time when the land was changed from 1881 to 1892, that any difference in rent between the time that we would convert and 1892 would have to be paid for. 119. When you had the opportunity to convert you were not paying £16 16s. a year rent? —I am aware that we had a rebate of one-third for five years. 120. What was the rebate in your case? —One-third. 121. You were well treated in getting that rebate? —We were well treated, but it was policy mi the other party's side to do so. It was just touch and go whether the land would be'thrown up, and they would get no rent in many cases. Jt practically meant bankruptcy to those who were on the land, and if we had not been pulled, through it would have been bad policy for the Native and also for the country. 122. Mr. Kerr.\ Do you mean six guineas would mean bankruptcy? —It meant a considerable thing to us in those days. We had to eke out expenditure and live on the garden produce, &c, and we had to be very careful. 123. Mr. Bell.] You recognize that you had entered into a bargain which, if insisted on by the Public Trustee, would have resulted in your bankruptcy? —It would have resulted in our giving the land up. My brother gave his share up. 124. You have to thank the Public Trustee, then, for saving you from bankruptcy? —From losing the land. 125. Mr. Welsh.] You said that you had to add improvements to your land or else you would have been brought to book?— Yes. 126. By whom? —By the Department of Agriculture, I suppose, for not providing the proper accommodation for milking. 127. It is well you should understand what your rights would have been in 1900 if you had converted : your rent would have been fixed on the unimproved value to be fixed then, and the terms of the lease would run back to September, 1896? —Yes. 128. The back rent you would have had to pay would be from September, 1896, to the time you converted in 1900, which was based on 5 per cent, on the unimproved value in 1900? —Yes, I understand that now. 129. And the payment of improvements in excess of £5? —-Yes. 130. Would that have commended itself to you?— Yes, it would have commended itself to me more than I thought. I thought we had to go back to the original Act in 1893. 131. You thought you would have to go back to what period?—As I did not know of the right of conversion in 1900 I did not know there was a condition for converting, and if there had been subsequent chances I thought we were to start from the time the original Act came down. 132. I am pointing out that the load would go back to 1896? —I did not know that. 133. TJie Chairman.] What did you understand the terms to be? —I understand now that if 1 converted in 1900 the valuation would be taken of the lot in 1900; I would pay 5 per cent, on the unimproved value at that time, and for the rent to start from 1896. I did not understand that before. Edward John Dudley sworn and examined. (No. 10.) 1. Mr. W.elsh.] What are you?—l am a slaughterman at the present time. 2. And you live in Opunake?—Yes. 3. Do you hold a lease under the Act of 1881? —I do. 4. What land is it? —Section 45, Block IX, Opunake Survey District. •"). What area? —10 acres. 6. When did you acquire that 1891. 7. How did you acquire it? —I purchased Mr. J. Pennington's interest in the section. 8. What is the rent? —3s. per acre. 9. What are the improvements upon that place?— The improvements on that section are nothing but grassing avid fencing. 10. There are no buildings on the section? —No. 11. 1 think you claim an interest in another section? —Yes, Section 46. 12. Tell the. Commission how you claim an interest in Section 46?— M i ,. Pennington took up Sections 46, 47, and 48 when the land was originally leased. 13. Who took up Section 45? —A man named Reid, and Pennington bought Reid's interest in Section 45. 14. What wan the next step? —Pennington then sold his interest in Sections 46, 47, and 48 to Mr. G. W. Rogers, reserving the right of occupation of Section 46 under an agreement for separation of the lease at any time required. I then purchased Mr. Pennington's interest in Section 46 at the same time as T purchased Section 45. 15. Have you ever had it transferred to you ?—No, it has never been transferred to me. 16. Has Section 45 been transferred to you?— Yes. 17. But not Section 46?— No. 18. Who occupies Section 46?—1 occupy it, but my brother has a lease. He subsequently purchased Mr. Rogers's interest in th? three sections. 19. You had your own arrangements with your brother in regard to 40?— No, it was always understood that it was mine. When nrv.brother bought the sections he understood they were giving him 46 and 47, but they also gave him 48. 20. Did you apply to the Public Trustee?— Yes, to surrender the leases of Sections 45, 46, 47, and 48. ' - 21. Would they do it? —No. Mr. Jack would not do it, because he said all my improvements were on Section 45, and that it would be doing the Maoris an injustice, as by. putting Section 46 in T would have lli acres in addition to claim compensation on.

E. J. DUDLEY.]

43

G.—2.

22. Under what Act were the leases to Sections 46, -17, and 48?— The 1881 Act. 23. And the lease to Section 45?--Also under the 1881 Act. 24. What do the improvements ozi Section 45 consist of ?—-Nothing at all but grassing and fencing. 25. What was that land originally, open or bush?—lt was flax and toitoi—rough. 26. What are the improvements on the other section, 46?— There is my house and sheds and grassing and fencing, and 1 live there. 27. What do you value the improvements at? —I should think, about i>sso 28. Is Section 45 under mortgage? —I was under the impression that both were under mortgage, but apparently I have only a title to No. 45, and therefore the mortgage can only be over 45. 29. Who is it mortgaged to? —To the Advances to Settlers Department. 30. AVhat are the improvements on No. 45? —Nothing at all but grassing and fencing. 31. What do you value the improvements at? —£30, 1 suppose. 32. You have given a mortgage to the Advances to Settlers Department over your land?— Yes. When I put the application m for the advance I put it in for Nos. 45 and 46. 33. Mr. Kerr.] But you had no title to 46. You did not give the Advances to .Settlers Department security except over No. 45? —That is all the security they have got. 34. Mr. Welsh.] What is the amount of the mortgage? —£110. 35. And the acreage of No. 45?—10 acres. 36. And No. 46? —11 J acres. 37. Is this the Government valuation?— Yes, 1 have the Government valuation of the two sections. [Produced and put in : Exhibit B.] 38. Can you tell us when you acquired Section 45 —what year?—lB9l. 39. Were you aware of any right of conversion? —Yes. 40. When did you become aware of that? —Some time towards the end of 1892. 41. And what did you do?—I made inquiries about the conversion, and 1 found that my financial position entirely precluded me from taking advantage of it. 42. Whom did you inquire from? —From Mr. Rerinell, the Reserves Agent at the time. 43. Did you convert? —No. . 44. After that had you any further right of conversion?— Not to my knowledge until within the last month, when you told me. 45. You had the right of conversion in 1900 : your rent would have been fixed at 5 per cent, on the unimproved value at that time, and the rent would run back to the 26th September, 1896; you would have to pay the difference in rent from September, 1896, to the time you converted in 1900, and you would have to pay for all improvements over £5, and the costs of conversion, whatever they might be. Had you known of that in 1900 would you have converted?—l would have converted Section 45, but not 46. Of course, the improvements would have stopped me converting No. 46. 46. The Chairman.] Did you have those improvements on in 1900 of about £300?— I practically had the same improvements. I have had a couple of small rooms put up since. 47. Mr. Welsh.] Had you made inquiries of those gentlemen you spoke to as to what it would cost you in 1892?— Yes. 48. Are you sure it was Mr. Rennell? —It was the Reserves Agent; I believe his name was Rennell. It was the Reserves Agent prior to Mr. Fisher. 49. What is the rent of Sections 45 and 46? —-For each section, 3s. per acre. 50. Gross-examined by Mr. Bell.] What did you pay 7 Mr. Peiniington for those two sections? — £40. I did not absolutely pay anything, but I took over a mortgage of £40 that was on them. 51. Can you explain this record on the file: "Joseph Ponn'ington, of Inglewood, settler, being the registered proprietor of an estate of leasehold in Sections 45 and 46, Block IX, Opunake Survey District, containing 21 acres 1 rood, has by memorandum of transfer executed in duplicate, in consideration of the sum of £140, transferred the same to Edward John Dudley, of Opunake." Is that entirely incorrect?—lt is not entirely correct. As far as my memory goes, I never paid him £100. 52. Was there a memorandum of transfer issued in duplicate? —I never saw one, and I never got one. 53. You said that Section 46 had not been transferred to you?—As far as 1 know, it has never been transferred to me. 54. Mr. Kerr.] To whom do you pay the rent?—To the Public Trustee. 55. In respect of Section 46 as well as 45?— Yes. [Public Trust Office records show that lease was transferred to Mr. E J. Dudley.]' 56. Both the sections are subject to this mortgage to the Advances to Settlers Department for £110 : if you have 21 acres at £5 an acre, that comes to £105; therefore if you had improvements of more than £5 10s. an acre the Department would have ample security for the loan? —Yes! 57. When did you first know your improvements were limited to £5 an acre?— Well, I really knew when I took up land on the Eltham Road.. When the first of this Native land was leased out I jaw it on the prospectus of the land. 58. Any one could see it there?— Yes. John Clark sworn and examined. (No. 11.) 1. Mr, Welsh.] You are a farmer, and live at Okato?—Yes. 2. Are 3 T ou the holder of a lease under the Act of 1881 ? —Yes. 3. What is the section ?—Section 20,' Block V, containing 125 acres. 4. What is your rent? —3s. per acre. 5. When did you acquire that land?—ln January, 1899. 6. Whom did you purchase it from?— From W. J. Gray, of Okato.

G.—2.

44

[J. CLARK.

7. What pricu did you pay him?-—=£sso. 8. Did you see the lease before you purchased? —No. I bought on the condition that I was to see the lease before I completed my bargain. 9. Did you see the lease before completing?— Yes. 10. And you read it?— Yes. 11. From the lease, what did you gather your rights were?— That I was to be paid for all improvements, and that at the end of the term it would be put up for public tender. 12. At that time did you value the improvements I—Yes.1 —Yes. I valued them at about £300. 13. Have you remained in occupation of the land since then? —Yes, I am in it now, and have been living on it all the time. 14. What is the value of your improvements at the present day?—£7oo, as near as I can judge. 15. Did you ever hear of any right to convert your lease to a lease under the Act of 1892?—N0. 16. Did any one inform you that you had a right?— No. 16a. Did you receive a circular from the Public Trustee stating that you had that right?— No. 17. Did you see any reference to it in the newspapers? —No, never. 18. When did you first become aware of that right?- i --I never knew there was any right till just lately. I have lately heard people agitating to get some redress. 19. You say when you purchased you thought you were to be paid for all your improvements? —Yes. 20. If you had been aware at that time that you were not to be paid for all improvements, but only buildings, fixtures, and fences up to .£5 an acre? —There is no limit in my lease. 21. But that was the law at the time. If you had been aware of that, and if you had also been aware that you could have given up that lease and taken a new lease based on a rental of 5 per cent, on the unimproved value in 1900; that that lease would run back to September, 1896, and you would pay the rent from that date; that in the new lease provision was made for you to get full compensation for all your improvements at the end of your term, and that you were to have the right of renewal at the end for twenty one years on paying 5 per cent, on the unimproved value, would you have thrown up the old lease?— Most decidedly, and taken the new one. 22. You say the present value of your improvements is £700? —Yes. That is approximate. I am taking a very moderate value. 23. Gross-examined In/ Mr. Bell.~\ You say you got your land in January, 1899? —Yes. 24. When did you go into possession of it? —On the 2nd January, 1899. 25. Now, there is a return made up by Mr. Fisher, who was then the Reserves Agent, in which he says that he posted a registered letter to you as the present lessee of that land on the 14th December, 1898. Are you certain you are right in your date? — I am right in my date. 26. Mr. Kerr.\ Had you been in possession before you got your title? —No. 27. Mr. Bell.] You did not get a solicitor to look over your lease?—-Yes, I did. 28. Did you ask him about the value for improvements t — He simply read the lease through carefully to me, and 1 made up my mind. 29. You did not get him to inquire as to what the regulations were? —No. 30. When did you first hear that the improvements were limited to £5 an acre? —I did not know mine were limited. 31. When did you first know? — I think it w r as after Tinkler's case. 32. Tinkler's case did not decide that?— Tinkler's case caused some talk, and that was the first I knew of it. 33. Mr. Welsh.] Why are you so confident about (lie date you took possession? —In 1897 I left Scotland, and I was eighteen months on an adjoining farm, and then I took up Gray's place. It must have been 2nd January, 1899, I took up the lease. I arrived in New Zealand in June, 1897. 34. Mr. Kerr.] You say the lease was carefully read over to you?— Yes. 35. Then, you must have noticed in the clause of the lease dealing with compensation for improvements express reference is made to the regulations. It says that, the improvements in respect of which you shall be entitled to compensation shall be those as defined by the regulations. Did you take the trouble to see the regulations?—l had no regulations. I dare say I would see that when it was read. 36. Would not that cause you to inquire what the regulations said about the improvements? — There was the lease, and if there was any qualification 1 naturally accepted the qualification in the lease. I did not know anything about regulations at all. 37. Mr. Bell.] This is the part, I suggest, that might have caught your eye : they, are talking of the Jease being renewed to you, and in case it is not sold at auction it is valued by arbitration, but in fixing the improvements the arbitrators or umpire shall not be entitled to take into consideration the value of improvements for which the lessee would have otherwise been entitled to payment. Did not that show you that for some improvements the lessee was entitled to payment and for some he was not?—l do not think that is in my lease. 38. That does indicate that there are some improvements you are not going to be paid for? — It does not .show it. Edward John Dudley recalled. (No. 12.) 1. Mr. Welsh.] You told us that you paid £40 when you purchased from Mr. Pennington, and Mr. Bell produced a document showing you got the transfer, and that the consideration was £140? —I have since consulted my papers, and I find I paid him £40 in cash and took over a mortgage of £100. That makes the consideration £140. The Commission adjourned till Saturday, 18th May, 1912, at New Plymouth.

G.—2.

.J. J. ELWIN.]

New Plymouth, Saturday, 18th May, 1912. James Jeken Elwin sworn and examined. (No. 13.) 1. The Chairman .] What are you? —A farinei. 2. Residing where? —At present in New Plymouth. My lease was at Wharea. 3. Did you have a lease under the Act of 1881?— Yes. 4. What was the area?-—5OO acres. 5. And the rent? —3s. an acre. 6. Did you convert that lease? —Yes, in 1896. 7. Did you dispose of it? —No, 1 hold it still. It is subleased, but I hold the original still. 8. What is the rental you are receiving now? —12s. 6d. per acre. 9. What rent do you pay under the converted lease? —3s. lOJd.' 10. You are not represented by anybody before the Commission? — No. 11. I understand you wish to make a statement?-—ln 1892 when the new lease came into vogue two people came round to value, one for the Natives and one for the Europeans, and they objected to give value for what 1 considered a very considerable amount of my improvements. Kor instance, I was working for a month gathering stones off a small piece of land, which 1 used for a culvert and to bridge a swamp, and they refused to give me any value for my improvements in that respect. There were many other things we had done on the land which 1 pointed out to them, and they refused to give any valuation at all. I had already paid £12 10s. before I could get them on to the place, and then when they refused to give any valuation for those improvements 1 reckoned it would be better to let the whole thing go. 12. And not to convert?— Yes, and not to convert. In regard to a neighbour of mine, Mr. Wells, two arbitrators had valued, and he paid ,£6OO Mr. Bell: 1 object, sirs; this is not evidence. 13. The Chairman.] What has all this got to do with what we have to inquire into here? You have had your chances, and you decided not to convert on the ground that it was not payable for you to do so, inasmuch as the arbitrators would not give you that which you considered was fair for your improvements ?—Yes. 14. Then, how does it help us in any way whatever to hear what conclusion you came to with other parties? If you like to give us any information that comes within the scope of our inquiry—for instance, that there was some misguidance or some trap, although not deliberately, whereby you d-id not understand that there was to be a limit of £5 an acre for improvements— we shall be glad to hear you? —We had an impression, and it was stated on the map, that there was to be 15. I will ask you a question first: did you or did you not know you could convert? —In 1892 I did know. 16. Did you or did you not know that the limit to be allowed for improvements was £5 per acre? —1 did not know previous to the time of the right of conversion. 1 knew that we should get improvements, but 1 did not know what the amount was to be. 17. Had you not a copy of the regulations?— No. I am sure we never had a copy of the regulations issued under the Act of 1881. 1 believe the regulations were compiled later. 18. The regulations were compiled in 1883? —The lease distinctly refers to the Act of 1881. 19. The regulations were in force from 1883; that is when the} 7 were drawn up under the Act of 1881, and before 1892 there were nine years? —The lease makes reference to the Act. 20. And to the regulations especially in connection with improvements. It certainly does not put the words rive pounds, but it makes reference to the Act and to the regulations?— Well, the regulations do not say £5. 21. Yes, they do; the regulations did say so. I will read Regulation 30, which says, "Improvements to be suitable to and consistent with the extent and character of the holdings, and none shall be allowed for in any valuation in excess of £5 for every acre of rural land, or £10 for every acre of suburban land"? —There is no doubt that is the case. 1 had not seen that; we were not served with a copy of those regulations. 22. The regulations also say, " The conditions set forth in the Act and these regulations as regards leases shall operate and shall be deemed to bind the lessor and the lessee as fully and effectually as if they were set forth in every lease"?— Well, those regulations were not set forth on the lease. 23. The regulations were not copied out on the lease?—l had not seen them. 24. Mr. Kerr.] There is a specific reference to the regulations in the lease, which would certainly put any ordinary person on inquiry? —That was done. I myself remember inquiring from Mr. Rennell, Public Trust Reserves Agent. He explained what they were, and that was the first intimation I had about the £5. 25. You knew about it?— Yes, I knew about it, but had not seen it in print. The reason we did not convert in 1892 was again the great cost which conversion entailed. 26. The Chairman.] Well, will you explain what the great cost is? You did convert?— Yes. 27. And how much did it cost j r ou?—Over £100. 28. How do you make up that amount? —I had to pay the difference in back rent between 3s. and 3s. IOJd. 29. How much did that make?—l cannot say now; I have not the figures in front of me. 30. There were 500 acres, and it would be about £21 10s.?—Yes. I converted as from 1896, and had to pay back rent from 1897 or 1898 to 1896. I had to go back to September, 1896. 31. Well, £50 would cover that?— Yes. Then there was £12 10s. we had to plank down. I made application in 1892, and that was thrown out, and I had the costs of that to meet and the costs of the present application. It came to a little over £100. 32. What is the value of the improvements?— About £2,500 to £2,800.

45

G.—2.

46

[J. J. EL WIN.

33. About £5 10s. per acre?— Yes. My improvements at that time were over the £5 per acre talked about, and that was the reason I wished to convert. 34. So that you are in this position : you have really Bs. per acre from your sublessee? —Yes, that is so. 35. With a perpetual right of renewal?— Yes. 36. On the unimproved value? —Yes, 5 per cent, on the unimproved value. 37. Cross-examined by Mr. Bell] 1 have got in front of me, Mr. Elwin, a copy of the Taranaki Herald of the 16th May, 1912?— Yes. 38. You knew this Commission was sitting to inquire into this matter? —Undoubtedly. 39. And you took it on yourself to write a letter, I suppose, for the guidance of the Commissioners? —No, Ido not think so. 1 think it was in the interests of my fellow-lessees. 40. I just want to refer you to one or two statements which you make in that letter. You tell us, or, rather, 1 presume you were endeavouring to tell the Commissioners, " When in 1881 the Native lands on the west coast were vested in the Public Trustee for administration for the benefit of the Natives " : you say for the benefit of the Natives? —Yes. 41. " It was after their condition and ability to live on the lands reserved for their use had been ascertained." Who ascertained that? —Did not Sir William Fox? 42. Did Sir William Fox ascertain it? —He had a Commission on the west coast after the confiscation of the lands, and reserves were made for Natives all over the place. 43. Will you tell me whether Sir William Fox reported at all on the ability of the Natives? —I will not tell you anything at all, because 1 do not know. 44. Well, that statement was a wild statement?- —It was not a wild statement; it was currently known at the time. It was made probably before you were born, so you can know nothing about it. 45. You also say, " And it was distinctly understood that, as far as these leased reserves were concerned, they passed absolutely, entirely, and for ever from the possibility of occupation by those for whom the Public Trustee was acting "1 —Quite right. 46. What basis have you for that statement?—On one occasion a Native came on to my land— his name was Tui—and he said, " Now, So-and-so is dead, I am the head of this hapu, and all your transactions must go through me." 1 did not understand the position, and I went down to Mr. Rennell. I told him what had occurred, and he said, "We must see to that; these lands have absolutely gone from them, and they have no position in the matter whatever." A little while after this man was in the office talking with Mr. Rennell, and he then explained the position. 1 cannot remember the exact words, but the position he took up was that the lands were vested in the Public Trustee, who was to lease the lands for the benefit of the Maoris, and that the Maoris were not to look forward to having these lands revert to them in any shape or form in the future. 47. Mr. Kerr.] In what year was that? —That would be about 1885. 48. Mr. Bell.] This was the time at which Mr. Rennell knew perfectly well that the lands ware not vested in him as you say, and that the Natives were to have the chance of getting back on to the lands at the end of twenty-one years?—l do not know what Mr. Rennell knew; I only know what he said. 49. And on that you based your statement that it was distinctly understood after inquiry by Sir William Fox? —I did not say anything about Sir William Fox. I say there was an inquiry made by Sir William Fox when we came up to the district. It was part of the reason given that these lands were vested in the Public Trustee, and would not become Native lands again. 50. Now you go on to say, " The desire of the indolent half-breed to acquire the well-titled productive home of the industrious settler should have no standing either in law or in equity "? —Quite right. 51. Your present position is that you pay a rent for your land of £70 19s. lOd., and you draw from the sublessee to whom you leased it the sum of .£2lB 18s. ?—Yes. 52. That is your position?— Yes, that is my position. 53. You are leasing lands which are owned by the Natives, and without doing a hand's turn you are making a profit of something like £138 a year, and you talk about indolent half-breeds? —What did I and my family do for twenty-two years on that land? You are ignoring all that. Am I to receive nothing for that? 54. I presume you received.,,something at the time?—No, I did not. For some years 1 received nothing at all. 55. The Chairman.] And for some years you also had a reduction in your rent?— Because we could not possibly pay it. 1 sold butter at that time for about 16s. a keg. I had to reclaim the wilderness; I had to put up fences, ditches, and so on, and build houses; and that is what I am receiving the rent for, as it were. 56. Mr. Bell.] What was the state of your section when you took it up?—lt was a mass of swamp, flax, fern, scrub, and wild horses. 57. Mr. Kerr.] Was there no dry hind at all? —The swamps ran through it, but there were runs of dry land that we could get on. When 1 was looking for my pegs I found them in a swamp, and we were pretty well up to our knees in water looking for them. 58. Those swamps became the best land, did they not? —Yes, but you have to drain them first. There are some miles of drainage on my land. 59. I suppose there is a good fall to the sea?— Yes. There was no difficulty in draining except that some went down 6 ft. or more. 60. Mr. Bell.] Is a good part of the section flax swamp?— There is a considerable portion flax swamp. 61. What did you do with the flax?—lt was burned. 62. The whole lot?— Yes.

G.—2.

J. J. ELWIN.]

47

63. Were there no flax-mills in those days? —But my flax was gone before the flax-mills -started. 64. A good many of the lessees, I think, sold their flux? —Yes. 65. There has been no mention of that from any lessee so far; he.has talked of the hard times he was having?—lt cost us as much to get the flax to the mills as you got for it. The Maoris' bel\)w me were selling the flax at £1, and they reckoned it cost them very nearly £1 to get it carted to the mill. 66. Now we pass on to another section of your letter. You say, "The desolate and unprofitable manipulation indulged in by those Natives who are in occupation of their allocated holdings " : are you aware there are a considerable number of Natives who are working their lands just as profitably as the white man in Taranaki now? —I believe so; there are a few. 67. Then you make some reference to the Native holdings in Hawke's Bay : have you got a wide acquaintance with Hawke's Bay?—l have not an individual acquaintance now. 68. What acquaintance have you? —My brother is living there, and I had an interview with him in December. 69. And .your information is gained from him? —Yes, my information is gained from him. 70. You admitted in an early part of your letter that the Public Trustee was to administer these lands for the benefit of the Natives? —Undoubtedly. 71. Now, if your lands had not been converted by you into a 1892 lease, the original lease would have fallen in by now? —No. 72. Well, it would be on the point of falling in?— Two years more. 73. And then it would have been leasable by the Public Trustee for at least £208 18s. ? —No, because he would have to pay me my improvements—£2,soo. 74. The incoming lessee would have to pay you £5 an acre for your improvements?— The Public Trustee would not be able to let my land on its capital value. The improvements would have to be cut out, and to lease it on the unimproved value of the land —not the total. 75. The only thing we have got to deduct is, say, 5 per cent, on £5 per acre from £218 18s. : that would be the rent? —Yes, that would be the position. 76. That would be a considerably larger rent than he is now receiving? —Yes, it would be larger than they are now receiving. 77. So that it would be better for the Natives, and to their benefit, if the lease had not been converted? —Undoubtedly; but that was the objection we had, and that was the reason why the 1892 lease was put in. 78. Well, what was the objection you had? —That my improvements were already over the £5, and that I should have at the end of the lease more improvements on the land than I should get compensation for. 79. But you have just told the Commissioners that the first time you inquired as to the amount of improvements you were to be compensated for Mr. Rennell told you it was limited to £5 an acre? —There was a long time between 1884 and 1892, and a good many conversations took place, but I am giving a general idea of what was the impression at the time 80. I am referring to one statement you have already made on oath, and that is that the first time you inquired from Mr. Rennell as to the amount of improvements to be compensated for he told you it was limited to £5 an acre? —Yes. I have an idea it was on the maps on which we secured our leases. 81. You think you remember seeing it on the maps?—l think I remember seeing something of the kind. 82. Well, it was on the maps. Now we are getting down to bed-rock. You knew when you took up the lease that the improvements were limited to £5 an acre? —Yes. 83. What have you to complain about? You knew all along that you were to be compensated for improvements to the extent of £5 an acre? —That was the position. We wanted something in the regulations whereby we would be secured for our improvements. 84. Was that for the benefit of the Natives?— For our own benefit, because we did not wantto buy our improvements back again. 85. You found you had not made such a good bargain as you thought you had? —You can put it that way if you like. The Commission adjourned till 10.30 a.m., on Monday, 20th May, 1912.

New Plymouth, Monday, 20th May, 1912 Joseph Mackay sworn and examined. (No. 14.) 1. The What are you?—A settler, residing in Fitzroy. 2. Are you the holder of an original lease? —I am. 3. What is the number of it?— Subsection 4, Section 13, Block. 11, Ngaire Survey District. 4. What is the area of it? —147 acres. 5. And the rent?—l forget the rent. Mr. Zachariah: The rent is Is. 6d. per acre. 6. The Chairman.] Have you converted it into a perpetual lease? —I was not the original holder, but I am the holder of an original lease. 7. From whom did you obtain it? —The late Mr. Bates. 8. What did you pay him for it?—l paid £800 to his executors. 9. When did you get it? —I really forget, but about the end of 1906 or the beginning of 1907.

G.—2.

[j. MACKAY.

10. That was past the time of conversion? —Yes, it was not converted by Mr. Bates. The late Mr. Bates was a very peculiar man —a kind of hermit. He had nobody dependent upon him except himself, and I suppose he concluded that his then lease would last his time, which it did, and consequently he did not convert. He was not a man of much education, and Ido not think he looked very far into the future. When 1 took over the lease I was under the impression that 1 had bought an ordinary Maori lease, which is by no means the worst tenure in this part of the world, and consequently I set to work and spent a lot of money on improvements, until it was too late for me to realize my real position. 11. I understand you wish to make a statement, and give us some information?— Yes. Well, as 1 said, I was under the impression that I had got an ordinary Maori lease, and was very proud of the fact. 'Hie fences were all decayed, and I renewed the whole of them, and subdivided a good deal more than Bates had done. 1 stumped., grubbed, and ploughed, and resowed a considerable portion of the clearing. In fact, I may say it is all fit to be ploughed except about 6or 7 acres. Part of it was ploughed before, and therefore 1 could not tell the.exact area I ploughed. I reploughed what had been ploughed, and I brought under cultivation a great deal more, and resowed the whole in grass, at a cost of considerably over ,£3OO. Then, there was no house upon the property. The late Mr. Bates had a wliare, which 1 will not attempt to describe. J2. What did you do?—I built a nice cottage at a cost of £450, and if the Commissioners desired I could easily get some of my neighbours on the East Road, Stratford, to give evidence as regards the improvements. 13. What woidd you then reckon all the improvements worth?— There is £300-odd, and £450 for the house, and .£BOO for the goodwill of the lease. 14. Did you not know that your improvements were restricted to £5 an acre?— Not until too late. I think the evidence shows I did not, because if 1 had realized my position Ido not think I would have spent so much money on improvements. 15. Well, how it is you came to the conclusion that you had, what you call, an ordinary Maori lease?— Because 1 have had some experience of Maori leases. I was living in Auckland, and my attention had not been called to these West Coast leases. 16. You bought a pig in a poke?— Yes, and, of course, lam to blame. 1 admit that 1 ought to have been more alert. 1 should like to add that, as far as my own personal feelings are concerned, I think one of two courses would be equitable under the circumstances. First, that those leaseholders who. were foolish enough not to come in under the 1892 Act might fairly be allowed to come in now. I think if the Act was good in 1892 it ought to be good now. And they should be allowed to come in on this condition : that they paid the difference between 1892 and now. The only other alternative I see that would be equitable would be this : that, speaking personally, in the event of my having to give up my lease I should be paid full value for all my unexhausted improvements. 1 think that is fair. 17. You do not recognize the maxim of caveat emptor'l —Oh, yes. 1 say I made my bed and I must lie on it, but 1 think there are various ways of lying on it. 18. But you want to lie as easy as you can? —Yes, justly and equitably. I do not want to rob the Maoris —far from it—because they have never robbed me. I have never received anything from them except the utmost kindness wherever 1 have been in both Islands. 19. Mr. Kerr.] What did you think was the duration of your tenancy when you purchased?— Maori leases are generally for twenty-one years, and renewable. 20. So that when you bought this lease you did not think you had the right of renewal?— Yes, I did—renewable for another twenty-one years. In fact, it is one of the best tenures in the colony. 21. Did you have a solicitor acting for you when you purchased?— No. 22. How was that?—lt was my son who purchased it, and he came up to Auckland and handed it over to me. 23. What do you say is the actual extent of the improvements on the land apart from the £800 which you gave for the goodwill?—I am not an experienced valuer, and 1 could not say. 24. But approximately: do you think it exceeds £5 an acre? —Oh, certainly; £5 would not cover it. 25. What excess is there?—l, could not say, but the Commission could easily consult that by consulting the valuation roll of the Stratford County Council, and comparing the valuation before my improvements with what is the valuation now. 26. When was it you discovered that your lease was a West Coast Settlement lease? —The first I heard of it was when I got a letter from a gentleman in Manaia asking me to attend a meeting of leaseholders interested in these West Coast leases. 27. When was that?— That was two or three years ago. 28. Did you make any inquiry then as to the precise terms of the lease? —Yes; I then ascertained exactly my position. 29. You knew you were limited to £5 an acre then? —Yes. 30. Have you effected any improvements since then?— No. I could not make many more improvements on the farm. I am not absolutely certain as to the time, but I was going to give the Commission a cue to finding it out. This gentleman who wrote to me asked me to join with other leaseholders in sending a deputation down to Wellington to interview the Government on the subject, and, of course, that led me to inquire. They asked me for a contribution towards" the expenses of this deputation, and I contributed my quota. 31. How long have you been out of possession?— Two years. 32. You have a tenant now? —Yes. 33. What rent is he paying?—He pays £1 an acre. 34. Is he dairying the land? —It is all fit for dairying, but it is not being dairied on now.

48

49

G.—2.

J. MACK AY.]

35. What is it being used for?— The tenant is a kind of cattle-dealer, and he uses it for that purpose. 36. Gross-examined by Mr. Bell.] Mr. Maokay, I think the Public Trust records show that you purchased this land on the 4th April, 1908? —Is that so? 37. I suppose we may take that as correct? —I cannot tell, but if the Public Trust records show it I suppose that is correct. 38. Now, you have told the Commission that you first found out about the limitation of improvements of £5 an acre when ? —Well, at the time this deputation went down to Wellington —two or three years ago; but I cannot fix the date. 39. How did you find out? —This deputation sent a letter asking me to join them in going to Wellington to interview the Government about the leases. That led me to inquire into my position, and I took the trouble to read up the Acts, and found out all the information from other people as well. 40. You have told the Commission that since you ascertained that you were limited to £5 an acre you put no more improvements on the land ?—Yes, that is so; but Ido not think it would be very much more improved. 41. Now, I repeated those questions to you with a view to giving you an opportunity to correct yourself if you were wrong?— Yes. 42. Do you still stick to those statements? —Yes, to the best of my recollection and belief. 43. Now let me refer to a letter written on the 26th January, 1909, by you to the Public Trustee, Wellington: " Maranui, N.P., 26th January, 1909.—The Public Trustee, Wellington. —Dear Sir, —I am the holder of a Maori lease of some 147 acres, more or less, near Stratford, and known locally as ' Bates's Farm.' I have cleared, stumped, and ploughed between 80 and 90 acres under the impression that this work would count as improvements. On application to Mr. Jack, your representative here, I find I am mistaken, as you will see from the enclosed memo, lately received from him. I should like to build a house on the section and reside there. The only house there at present is a miserable whare not fit to house a pig. In conversation with Mr. Coutts, the Government Valuer for that part of the district, he expressed the opinion that the improvements I had already made could not be far short of .£5 per acre. Under the circumstances, lamat a loss what to do, hence my application to you. If you can give me any advice I shall be much obliged to you. Meanwhile it seems to me a pity to keep back improvements. Can anything be done? —I am, yours faithfully, J. Mackay." Now, here is the enclosure which you mentioned in that letter : " Public Trust Office, New Plymouth, N.Z., 20th January, 1909. —Joseph Mackay, Esq., New Plymouth. —Dear Sir, —Your thirty years' lease: The following is the information asked by you this morning : Three months before the expiry of your lease the improvements are to be valued by two arbitrators, one to be appointed by the lessee and the other by the lessor. In case of the arbitrators failing to agree they shall appoint an umpire. The only improvements to be valued shall be buildings, and fixtures, and fencing. No improvements to be allowed in excess of £5 an acre. A fresh lease on the same terms as the old one is to be offered for sale by public tender, subject to the payment by the incoming tenant to the lessee of the value of the improvements.—Yours faithfully, J. B. Jack, Reserves Agent." Then you received from the Public Trustee a letter dated 29th January, 1909, as follows : "J. Mackay, Esq., Maranui, New Plymouth.—Dear Sir, —In acknowledging the receipt of your letter of the 26th instant, I regret that I can add nothing further to the remarks contained in my Reserves Agent's letter to you of the 20th instant. He has stated the position clearly. The new lease must be put up for public competition in terms of the provisions contained in the existing lease. I return my Agent's letter to you." Now, Mr. Mackay, what have you got to say to that?—lt is exactly what I have told you. 44. You have told us in your evidence that since you ascertained your position that you were limited to £5 an acre you had put no improvements on the land. Here is a letter in which you wrote to ascertain your position and stated that you are anxious to put up a house? —Yes. 45. You have told us that you put that house up, and that it cost you £450? —Yes. 46. Now, which of those two statements is correct?—l had undertaken to put that house up for the tenant, and was bound to do it. 47. The Chairman.] But that does not get you out of the statement? —No, but I do not see anything wrong in the statement. 48. I understand the statement was that after you had discovered you were only covered to the extent of £5 an acre you put no more improvements on the land?— Yes. 49. Now, Mr. Bell says the letter shows that you built a house after you knew you were limited to £5 ?—Because I had undertaken to do it before. 50. The letter also says the improvements at that time were nearly worth £5 an acre?— There were improvements put on the land before I got possession of it, but not the house. 51. At the time the letter was written you were aware that the improvements were limited to £5, and were close up to the £s?—All I want to say is that my statement as regards improvements is perfectly correct at the present moment —that £5 an acre would not pay me for the improvements on that land. 52. Mr. Kerr.] But the question is that when you put the improvements on, you knew that the improvements were limited to £s?—But I undertook to build the house for the tenant if he required it. 53. But you knew the improvements were limited to £s?—Yes, that is correct. 54. Was it you or 3'our son who .paid the £800?— I paid it to Mr. Bates's estate. 55. The Chairman.] How long has this tenant of yours been in possession?— Getting on for three years, I think. Mr. Znchariah: Since July, 1910.

7—G. 2.

[j. MACKAY.

G.—2.

50

56. Mr. Kerr.] Of course, you know you have a conditional right of renewal under your lease? —There is no right; it is put up to public auction. 57. When you have the right with any one else? —Oh, yes. 58. And if any one does not come you will have the opportunity of taking it ? —Yes, provided no one outbids me; but that is a very poor security. 59. If upon revaluation it was found that there were improvements in excess of £5, it is just possible the Public Trustee may to some extent meet you? —Yes. With regard to the improvements, they are there; they are not hidden under a cloud, and any one could see them who is capable of estimating. 60. The Chairman.] Do you wish to say anything more? —No, sir. (Addendum, 27th May, 1912 : While I was giving my"evidence in chief I was thinking of the land qua land — i.e., soil and of the improvements thereon, such as felling, stumping, ploughing, and grassing; I forgot at the time that the erection of the house had to be included as an improvement.) Henry Corbett sworn and examined. (No. 15.) 1. Mr. Bell.] What are you?—A farmer. 2. And where do you live?—At Warea. 3. Do you know Mr. J. J. Elwin?—Yes, very well. 4. Was there any flax on Mr. Elwin's property?— Yes, a great quantity of flax on it. I lived just opposite, there being a road between us. 5. What were you doing in those days?— Farming and a bit of contract carting with teams, to make both ends meet. 6. What was done with Mr. Elwin's flax? —A large quantity of it was sent to a flax-mill to get dressed. 7. Mr. Elwin has sworn that none of his flax went to the mill, but was all burned off the place: is that true? —No, that is not true. A lot went to the mill. He certainly burned some off. I could not say how many tons, but he had a good lot cut. I gave him so much royalty for the cutting, and I carted it to the mill myself. He had some cut himself for the flax-mill, and I carted some for him too. Ido not think I carted it all; he carted some himself. I also bought some myself, so that I could get work for my teams. 8. Have you got any recollection of the amount you would have taken off on the royalty basis?—No, it is so long ago I cannot remember. 9. Well, roughly? —The first cutting I had off my own section was 400 tons, and he had at least twice as much as I had. 10. How many tons would go to the acre on the average?—Up to 30 tons per acre, but on a good number of acres there is none. In swampy land it will go 30 tons to the acre easily. Of course, it was not all under flax. 11. Give us a rough estimate of how much you took off on a royalty basis?—l should say he had 700 or 800 tons cut altogether, which I carted and he carted himself. 12. Do you remember what you paid as a royalty? —About os. a ton in those days, I think. 13. Would he make as much out of what he cut and got rid of himself as you would make? —Yes. 14. He would make more than ss. out of what he cut himself ?—He would get that for royalty. i 15. Would ss. a ton for all the flax that was cut be a reasonable thing for a man to expect? —Yes, I think so. 16. Mr. Kerr.] Who was the flax-miller at that time, do you know? —There were two or three. 17. To whom did he supply the flax?— Probably to two or three different people. I could not say exactly, because two or three tenants had one mill at different times. 18. Can you remember the names?— Mr. Binnie, Mr. Albert Bayly, and Mr. Andrew Gray. Joseph Anderson sworn and examined. (No. 16.) 1. The Chairman.] What-are you? —A farmer, residing at Stratford. 2. Are you the holder of an'briginal lease?— Yes, sir. 3. Are you an original lessee?■ —Yes. 4. What is the area of the lease?— 94 acres, Section 13, Block 11, Ngaire. 5. And what is the rent?—ls. 6d. per acre. 6. Have you converted that lease yet?—No, sir. 7. Did you know that you could convert that lease at different times?—l knew once, and once only. 8. When was that?—l could not say, but it was after the 1892 Act had passed away. 9. Do you mean after all the opportunities had gone? —After the 1892 Act had gone. I got a notice from the Public Trustee about twenty years ago stating that I could surrender the lease and comply with certain sections. I had a partner at the time. 10. But what was to be the result when you surrendered the lease and complied with the conditions? —I understood that I could come under the Act of 1892. I understand it now, but I did not understand it then. 11. Did you give the notice consideration? —No, sir, I did not; I did not take much notice of it. 12. Have you been residing on your lease ever since? —Yes. 13. You have not sublet it at all? —No, sir. 14. Did you not learn that you had other opportunities besides that under the Act of 1892? No, sir, I never knew except that one notice, and that is all I can remember ever receiving.

J. ANDERSON.]

51

G.—2.

15. You do not remember any notice in 1895?—N0, sir. 16. Or any opportunity again in 1898?— That may be the one I am speaking of. It is a long time ago since I had the notice sent to me. 17. You do not know whether it was 1898 or not I —l think the notice said that there was a short Act which would remain in force for twelve months. 18. What is the extent of your improvements?—l should say up to between £7 and £8. 19. Did you or did you not know that your improvements were limited to £5 an acre?— Yes, I heard it, but I never saw it in my lease. 20. When did you hear it —lately?—I heard it a good number of years ago. 21. Were all your improvements put on before you heard that?—No, I have been improving up to within the last two years. 22. Although you knew your improvements were to be limited to £5 an acre? —Yes. We could not live on it otherwise. There was stumping and ploughing to be done. 23. Mr. Kerr.] When you took the lease up did you not know that compensation for improvements was to be limited to £5 an acre?—No, I heard of it shortly afterwards. I never read of it. 24. Did you never see it on the published maps of the lands that were offered for selection? — No, I cannot say I did. 25. Who was it told you —Mr. Rennell? —No, another lessee. 26. When you got that notice from the Public Trustee telling you that if you surrendered your lease and complied with certain conditions you would get a new lease under the Act of 1892 why did you not inquire about matters ? —I had a partner at that time, and we both had to agree to surrender the lease. I read the notice over and talked matters over with him, but we did not come to any conclusion; we did not agree to surrender the lease. 27. Why not? —I could not say. 28. Because you would have to pay a higher rental than under the original lease?— Yes, I suppose that is so. Mr. Bell: No questions. 29. The Chairman.] Have you anything further to say? —No, I have nothing further to say, except that I now believe it was in 1898 that I got the notice referred to. The Commission adjourned till next day, at 10.30 a.m.

New Plymouth, Tuesday, 21st May, 1912. William Levees Luscombe sworn and examined. (No. 17.) 1. The Chairman.] What are you?—A farmer, residing in New Plymouth. 2. Do you reside on your farm? —No, not now. 3. Are you the holder of an original lease? —Yes. 4. Of how many acres? —220 acres. 5. What is the rent? —2s. per acre. 6. What is the number of your section? —Section 44, Block XV, Kaupokonui. 7. Have you sublet? —Yes. 8. What rent have you sublet at? —£1 14s. an acre. 9. How long ago did you sublet? —Between four and five years ago. 10. What do you value the improvements at? —The last time it was valued by the District Valuer they were about £6 per acre. 11. When was that? —Between two and three years ago. 12. How long have you sublet it for? —It has another year to run. 1 leased it for five years, I think. 13. You have subleased it for a year less than the term? —Yes. 14. Did you know you could convert the lease? —Yes. 15. Did you ever get a notice-lo that effect? —I do not remember getting a notice; I may have. I would not swear I did or did not. 16. Did you consider the question of converting? —Yes. 17. And you came to the conclusion -you would not convert; is that so? —Yes. 18. What was your reason for that? —My reason at the time was that I was not dairying; it was not in existence here at the time. I was simply fattening cattle, and I thought by coming in there would be no great advantage to me, and I would not want to put on any more improvements for grazing only. 19. You thought it would not be an advantage to you?— Yes. At the time there were a good many surrendering their leases, and I understood we would have to pay something like £10 deposit to get the land revalued and to comply with the conditions of the Act. I think at that time I wrote to the Public Trustee about the matter, and said I would like to come under the Act of 1892, but I did not wish to go to the expense of revaluing, and asked him if he would consent to let me have a new lease under the new Act at the same rent as I was paying. I did not wish to have my rent raised or lowered. The rent of a good many of the others in the surrounding district was reduced, and some were raised. 20. It depended upon the then valuation ?—Yes. A good many were reduced in rent, but I did not want to be reduced or raised, and if I could have got the lease at the same rent I would have come under the new Act. The reply was that I would have to comply strictly with the

52

[w. L. LUSCOMBE.

G—2.

conditions of the Act, and nothing more was said about it. I bad not been long in the district, and the older settlers said they did not think there was any real advantage in it, and that they would not surrender if they were me. 21. Mr. Kerr.] You would like to have come* in. but you did not want to pay the increased rent? —No. 22. Did you know improvements were limited to £5 an acre?—l did not know till about that time. There was nothing in my lease then. The rumour was all over the district that the improvements were limited to £5. 23. You were not the original lessee : who was your predecessor?—l bought the goodwill from Mr. Carlthorpe. 24. When did you buy it?— Twenty-two years ago. The late Mr. Fantham, of Hawera, did the business for me. 25. Do you say you were at any time misled by the Public Trustee or his agents about the lease? —No. I went to the Public Trustee in Wellington, and that was what made me dissatisfied with the lease. I had heard rumours about it, and it would be about five or six years ago I heard about the improvements being limited. The Public Trustee told me then that the limit was £5. 26. Did you not know before that? —Well, ft was only rumoured. My lease does not explain anything on the matter. 27. Yes, it does; it says, " according to the regulations " ?—I have the lease here now. 28. Well, it says, " And it is hereby expressly agreed and declared between and by the said parties hereto that within three months before the determination of this demise by effluxion of time all such buildings and fixtures, including fencing, on the land hereby demised, as shall be deemed to be substantial improvements under the regulations." Did you not think it necessary to refer to the regulations and see what it says about improvements?—No, I did not at all time. I never occupied any land before, and we did not go into those sort of things; we trust to the people who do the business for us. I interviewed the Public Trustee chiefly because I wanted to know what became of the improvements over and above £5 an acre. I was fully of the belief in 1892 that the improvements were limited to £5, because people were talking about it, and it was the general rumour. I did not refer to the lease —it was in the bank, and has been there ever since. 29. Did you know who Mr. Fantham's lawyer was?—No, Mr. Fantham did all the work for me. 30. You did not instruct a solicitor yourself? —No. 30a. Did you not inquire something about your position in a matter like this? —It is a long time ago. He may have put the best side of the question on to me to try and get the sale. I always understood the improvements belonged to me. Since Tinkler's case it has been provided for. The Public Trustee said that the improvements over and above £5 would be lost, and I understood him to say that every £1 over the £5 would count against the £5 I was entitled to. Dairying then came into existence, and I leased the farm, and the improvements had gone up to £5 and over, and it did not pay me to put more on. 31. Cross-examined by Mr. Bell.] Now, you say you knew of your right to convert in 1892? —Yes. 32. You are not certain whether you subsequently received any notification from the Public Trustee? —No, I may or I may not have. Possibly I may have, if they were sent out in registered letters. 33. You have told us that one of the reasons you did not convert was that since you were only fattening cattle at that time you did not see the advantage of being able to put any additional improvements on the land? —Yes, quite so. 34. And you say that you discussed the advisability of converting with many other farmers in the district ? —Yes. 35. And that they advised you not to convert, and did not convert themselves? —Just so. 36. What do you mean when you say it would have been no advantage to you to put on any extra improvements? Did you know then you were limited to £5 an acre?— Yes, it was rumoured round then, when they were surrendering the leases, that £5 was the limit. 37. And everybody was talkjng about it?— All the lessees. We had a great number round our part, and it was the main talk during that time. 38. Then, the only thing at that time you and the other lessees did not understand was the fact that bushfelling and grassing were not included in the improvements?— Yes. Ido not know whether the nature of the improvements were discussed at that time at all. 39. That would be the only thing you could say was not understood at that time?— That is so. 40. That is the only complaint you could make as to having been misled? —I always understood from the first that bushfelling and grassing would be a substantial improvement. 41. And you know that that complaint has been put right by the Act of 1910—since Tinkler's case? —Yes, I understand that is so. 42. So that you have no complaint to make now?— What I say now is that I wish to have my improvements protected over and above £5, and the first right of renewal. 43. The C7iairman.~\ You want all your improvements, and you want a perpetual renewal? — That is by paying up the back rent from 1900. 44. Mr. Bell.'] When did you raise the improvements up to £6?— l suppose three or four years ago —perhaps a little longer. They might have been there for years before that. 45. But you knew in 1892 of the limitation of £s?—l did not know so early as that. 46. When you were talking of converting?—lt may have been when they were revived. There was some talk when it was revived. 47. There was some talk about the £5 an acre for improvements at the time it was revived? —Yes.

W. L. LUSCOMBE.j

53

G.—2.

48. When the matter was revived it was freely discussed?— Yes. 49. You have put those improvements on knowing that you were limited to £5 an acre? — According to the Dairying Regulations you are compelled to put them on. Since that time 1 have had to put £300 worth of improvements on in the shape of sheds, shifting sties, and buildings, and in addition I think I have three or four miles of box-thorn hedges, which have become of great value now. 50. But you put those extra improvements on with your eyes open, knowing you were losing everything over £5? —Quite so. I put them there in order to lease the farm and get the best I could out of it. That is the reason the rent has gone up so high. 51. The Chairman.] You are getting a profit of £352 a year —the difference between the rent of 2s. and £1 14s. an acre?—lf I had. not put those improvements on I do not suppose it would have been worth more than £1 an acre. Of course, the sore point is that I lose it at the end of the term. 52. You want to have your cake and to eat it too. You put those improvements on so that you could get this enormous rent —it is an enormous rent, because it is seventeen times the rent you are paying—and you put on those improvements in order to get it, and then you object that you should be treated as the terms of the lease state. No doubt you have been exceedingly wise, and these extra improvements have greatly benefited you? —Of course it has benefited me, but I think it has also benefited the lessor as well. 53. Where does he come in?—ln the next term of twenty-one years. Compared with freehold farms adjoining me, I suppose lam £8,000 to the bad. I have more improvements on my farm than the freeholder has, and I have worked much harder. 54. Mr. Kerr.~\ You knew what the tenure of the land was, and what you did you did voluntarily?— Yes, I believe in a bargain as a bargain, and in carrying it out, but I do not think we would be doing any injustice to the lessor if he would grant that. 55. The Chairman.] That is, fortunately, for the lessor and not for you to decide? —It would not be an injustice to allow the others to come in on paying up, provided we were willing to pay for it. 56. Mr. Eerr.] If the lessees got a privilege to which they were not entitled by the Act of 1892, you would be aggravating the mischief by granting the new leases now; you had the opportunity? —Certainly, I admit that, and lam sorry for it now. I worked very hard on the farm until I made myself ill, and my doctor advised me to take a trip to the Old Country. The Commission adjourned till next day, at Hawera.

Haweba, Wednesday, 22nd May, 1912. John White Foreman, J. P., sworn and examined. (No. 18.) 1. Mr. Welsh.] What are you? —A farmer. 2. And where do you live? —At Tikorangi. 3. And you are a Justice of the Peace?— Yes. 4. I first of all desire to deal with Section 101, Block V, Waitara : were yon the original lessee of that section? —I was. 5. When did you take up the lease? —In about the year 1885. 6. And what became of the lease?— Later on I transferred it to one of my sons. 7. But before you transferred it?—l held the lease for some years. 8. Did you hold it under the Act of 1881 all the time? —No. 9. What did you do with it?—l had it converted into a lease under the Act of 1892; 1 converted it into a lease with a perpetual renewal. 10. What year did you convert in? —I think it was in 1893; I am sure it was. 11. You took up the lease in what year?—lßßs, I think, but I am not absolutely certain. 12. When you took up the lease were you aware of the terms under which you were taking up the land? —No, I was mistaken in one respect. I thought the lease gave "us the right of renewal, but apparently it did not. 13. What do you mean my right of renewal?—l mean that had I retained possession of the lease until its expiry—namely, the thirty years —I should have had the right of renewal at a fixed rental by valuation, or the first opportunity to take the lease on again at a rental fixed by valuation. 14. That is what you thought your right was at that time? —That is so. 15. Did you know the effect of the limitation clause in your lease? —Yes. 16. You did not expect more than £5 an acre for improvements?— No. 17. Did you know the class of improvements for which you were to be paid?—l understood that it included clearing, grassing, draining, planting, fencing, and buildings. 18. Up to the limit mentioned? —Yes, £5. 19. Now, when did you first discover you were in error as to your belief regarding the right of renewal?— Not until a few months ago. 20. You told the Commissioners that you converted that lease in the year 1893? Yes. 21. Will you tell the Commissioners what was your object in converting that lease? My object in applying for a new lease was that when those lands were first leased it was recognized o-enerally by the people in the district that the upset rentals were too high. Some three or four years afterwards—about 1888 or 1889—the prices of stock and products of the land became very low, and we found that we could not hold those lands at a profit. In common with the other lessees we

G.—2.

54

[j. W. FOREMAN.

petitioned the Government, and asked if we could not get some consideration, and many of us ceased to pay the rent. The position was shortly this : that the lands were unprofitable to us, and unless there was some readjustment of the rent and the conditions, we intended to abandon it. That was our position up till 1892, when the Act of 1892 was passed, which enabled the Public Trustee to consider our position. We were invited to make application for new leases, and we were told that a valuation would be made of the properties and a new rental assessed. We had to deposit a sum of money. 22. The Chairman.] This was after the 1892 Act was passed?— Yes, in 1893. 23. But have you not skipped something —you were at this stage telling us that you were about to abandon your leases, or to surrender them I—Yes.1 —Yes. 24. That was in 1887. You told us what happened —you applied to the Government for some sort of relief : have you not missed out something?— The only thing I can think I did not make sufficiently clear is that we went on for some years —I cannot say positively how long — without paying any rent at all. 25. Without paying any rent at all? —That is so. 26. Did you or did you not get any consideration from the Government at that time? —1 think not. We got that consideration from the Public Trustee, because under the powers of the lease he could have re-entered on the land if he had chosen to do so. 27. But was that consideration given to you —that he allowed you to go on without paying rent for live years?—l will not say for five years. About 1887 or J BBB the price of the products of the land fell to a very low level, and we found that we could not occupy the land profitably. We therefore petitioned the Government to take our case into consideration, and to afford us some relief. Well, things remained in that state until after the passing of the 1892 Act. 28. For that period you got no relief except that the Public Trustee .did not pursue you for your rent?— That is my recollection. 29. Did you not get a reduction?—We got a reduction for the periods during which we had not paid until the new leases. 30. You went for that period without paying rent at all? —Yes. 31. And then afterwards you were allowed to pay a reduced amount? —We got a reduction for the time the rent was unpaid.; that was equal to the rent that was assessed under the new lease. 32. I do not understand you there: that would mean that under the new lease you got a reduction in your rent? —That is so. 33. Mr. Welsh.] Will you tell the Commission what was your object in converting? —I had two objects—one was to get a new lease which would give me full compensation for improvements, and the second was to get a reduction in the rent; in fact, I might reverse them and place the reduction in the rent as being the main object. 34. You did convert? —Yes. 35. And what happened to the rent? —I had it reduced from 6s. to 4s. 6d.—a reduction of 25 per cent. 36. And for the years during which you paid no rent, what did you pay? —My recollection is fairly clear as to that, that we paid up the back rent at the rate of 4s. 6d. per acre. 37. For the period during which you had paid no rent?— Yes, that is my recollection. I believe I am stating what is correct. 38. Had you anything to pay the Public Trustee for your improvements in excess of £5 per acre?— No. 39. What did you do with that lease subsequently?—l transferred it to one of my sons. 40. In what year ? —I could not say definitely, but I think about 1896 or 1897. 41. Now, I want to deal with another section: you acquired a lease of part Section 10, Block X?—l acquired it for one of my boys. 42. In what year?—lt was purchased, I think, in January, 1899. 43. In whose name was the transfer taken?— John Foreman, my son. 44. You purchased that lease from whom? —Mr. C. H. Jury. 45. At the time you purchased, what were the improvements upon the place? —I should say, about £4 an acre. It had been a bush section, but the bush was all felled; it was grassed and fenced, and there were buildings''on it to the value of £150, or perhaps more. There was a fourroomed house and outbuildings. 46. At that time did you take any steps to convert that lease? —No. 47. Why?—l did not know there was an opportunity to do so. 48. What opportunities of conversion were you aware of? —Only that afforded in 1893. 49. You have heard of no other?— No. 50. Now, when you took that lease for your son in 1899, if you had been aware that you could have taken it under the Act of 1892 instead of the Act of 1881, would you have converted it and taken it under that Act?— Yes. 51. Why? —I would have had two objects in doing so —namely, to obtain full compensation for improvements, and the absolute right of renewal. I should have acquired that, although at that time I did not know but what the lease carried the right of renewal. 52. At that time, what would have been your object in converting?—To get the full value for improvements. If I am permitted, I might say, in connection with that, that it is almost impossible on a small farm where the people are dairying not to get the improvements in excess of £5 an acre. With the work of subdivisions and different buildings, they will exceed the limit of £5 unless it is a very poor farm indeed. 53. Of your own knowledge, do you know the value of the improvements upon that farm of your son's now?—l could only say roughly; I should say there are improvements to the extent of between £5 and £6 an acre at present. They might exceed that—it depends on the valuer.

55

G.—2.

J. W. FOREMAN.]

54. As Chairman of the Clifton Count}' Council, can you speak as to the Native lands in your county that are held by the Natives under occupation licenses, and which have been let by them to Europeans? The Chairman: I understand that we are to be supplied with a list of those licenses that have been issued to Natives and which lands are held and occupied by Europeans. Mr. Welsh: I will be satisfied with that. Mr. Zachariah: There is no such list as that to be had. The list I will hand in is a list of the occupation licenses to the Natives, and they are supposed to be held by the Natives. Mr. Bell: I will admit this: that there is in Taranaki an area —I do not know whether large or small —of land held by Natives under occupation licenses, and let to Europeans. 55. Mr. Welsh.] You have heard the statement of my friend, Mr. Bell. He has admitted that there is an area of land in Taranaki which the Natives have the right to occupy under licenses, but which they have let to Europeans, who occupy those lands and pay the Natives the rent: can you carry it any further than that? —Only to the extent of the Clifton County Council. With the Commisioners' consent, I should like to say a few words on this subject. First of all, it was, I understand, suggested that the Public Trust Office should furnish the Commission with a return giving the information, but I am quite satisfied the Public Trust Office could not do it effectually except they sent out a man to inquire into every special case. With regard to the Valuer-General, he made a revision of the Clifton County Council valuations fifteen months ago — after the passing of the Rating Amendment Act, 1910, the Act which enables a local body to collect rates from those Europeans who are occupying Native land without any legal qualifications. 56. The Chairman.] That is not a local Act? —No, it is a general Act, passed by Parliament. At that time I was Chairman of the Clifton County Council, and we were desirous of obtaining power to rate the whole of the Native land. We took immediate steps to get these European occupiers of Native land placed upon the roll. First 1 had an interview with Mr. Flanagan, the Valuer-General, and I pointed out to him that, in the opinion of our Council, it was the duty of his valuers to put them on the roll —in other words, that his Department should do that work. Mr. Flanagan said No, it was a rating matter; but if the local bodies would send down a list of the names he would place them on the roll for rating purposes, but he would not do the work otherwise. Now, of the counties that are affected by lands under the West Coast Settlement Act— namely, Clifton, Taranaki, Eltham, Egmont, and Hawera —I believe lam correct in saying that only two counties have taken any steps to put these people on the roll—namely, Clifton and Egmont. The other counties have taken no steps whatever, and consequently it will be impossible for the Valuer-General to afford you very much information in that respect. 57. That only bears out what has been said already. You can only go the length of two of these counties against five or more. Is it not sufficient that there is an area of land that is occupied in this way? —Yes, perhaps so. 58. Mr. Kerr.~] There is no doubt the return we receive from the Public Trustee will show the area of land occupied by Natives under occupation licenses?— Fifty per cent, of the open land in the Clifton County Council 59. Mr. Welsh.] Will you produce the return? —I could not give the whole of the land held by Natives under occupation licenses, but I can give the area of land that is placed upon the valuation roll as being held by Natives in the particular ridings I have gone into. 60. What have you got within your own knowledge?— One of these returns is compiled by the Clerk to the Clifton County Council, and the other is compiled by myself from knowledge that has been imparted to me by others. The Chairman: Ido not think we can take this matter any further—it would be a dangerous step. We have it that there is an area of land which the Natives have under occupation licenses, but which they let to Europeans. Mr. Bell: Perhaps it will also help my friend if I say that I am using that fact as an argument in my favour. 61. Cross-examined by Mr. Bell.] Now, Mr. Foreman, you tell us that for some years you paid no rent under your lease at all. You got that consideration from the Public Trustee because you were in straitened circumstances? —Yes. 62. I think you were the principal agitator in the Clifton County Council to enforce the payment of rates by Natives on all occasions : am I correct?— That is so; I have tried to obtain that. 63. What they legally owe you say they have no excuse for not paying? —Well, I would not put it exactly that way. I have always regarded it in this light: that where lands were held they should contribute towards the upkeep of roads and bridges equally, according to valuation. 64. And if they do not pay, sue them, I suppose?— Well, yes, I would do that readily enough if the law gave us any redress. 65. You are not as soft-hearted as the Public Trustee was apparently?— Well, I should like to say in that connection that the Public Trustee has, I believe, right through the administration of the West Coast Settlement Act been a fair and lenient landlord. 66. He let you off paying your rents?— Well, at that time I was not particular; I would just as soon have chucked up the land. 67. At the same time his letting you off paying meant that he let the Natives off receiving their rents? —Quite so. 68. In connection with the first lease dealt with, you told us you had two objects in converting; you put it that the first object was the reduction in rent?— Yes. 69. And the second, not so important, that you would get full compensation for improvements?— That is so. 70. Now, with regard to the second lease, what would have been your object in converting? You say you would have converted if you had known of the power ?—To obtain full compensation for any improvements in excess of £5 an acre.

(1.—2.

[j. W. FOREMAN.

71. Nothing to do with reduction of rent in that case? —No. 72. As a matter of fact, I suppose you know your rent would have gone up in that case? —It might have. 73. You know it would have? —I am not certain about that. 74. In 1899 you say that a rent based on 5 per cent, on the unimproved value would have been considerably greater than 5 per cent, on the unimproved value in 1885? —It might have been larger. 75. I suppose you will admit it has gone up considerably in value since 1885? —Yes. 76. And, as a matter of fact, it was possible the rent might have been made so high that you would not have converted ? —lt would depend upon the Valuer, but I do not think it would have been so. 77. Reverting to the reduction in your rent again, you told us that you did not pay any rent for several years, and that you converted under the Act of 1892, and that then you paid up the arrears of rent on the basis fixed by the Act of 1892?— That is so. 78. Well, as a matter of fact, that is not so —your memory is playing you falsely. The concession which you got, according to the Public Trust Office return, was from £22 which you were paying originally? —I could not say exactly; it was 6s. an acre. 79. And there were 72 acres?— That is right. 80. It was reduced to £16 Bs. 10d., which is a reduction of £5 10s., and that you say was a necessary concession ? —Absolutely necessary in my case, and in many others. 81. Now, in regard to the second lease you say you bought for your son —you purchased it from Mr. Jury?— You said that I was incorrect in regard to the reduction in the rent. 82. No, I did not suggest that. The position was this : that your rent was reduced, and after the reduction was made you came in and had. your rent assessed, and it turned out, as a matter of fact, that your rent under the 1892 Act was the same as it had been reduced to before? — I am not here to make a wrong statement; but if it is like you say you will admit that I might very easily be mistaken in that, because I am certain I did not pay the back rent that was owing until after I had accepted the conditions imposed by the new lease, and my recollection is distinct that I paid up at the same rate as the new lease provided. 83. You purchased Mr. Jury's lease, I think? —Yes, I purchased it for my son. 84. What was the area of that land? —101 acres. 85. And the rent?—9d. per acre. 86. How long had the lease to run ?—lt matures in three years' time. 87. It falls in in 1915?— Yes. 88. What did you pay for it? —£350. I might say that that included also another piece of land held under the West Coast Reserves Act of 33 acres, so that there were about 133 or 134 acres. 89. And £350 bought the lot?— Yes. 90. And the improvements were worth something like £400?— Yes. 91. To say nothing of the goodwill? —The goodwill was not valued very highly with that particular piece of land; it was in the market a good while. 92. It must have been worth something?—l would not have given £350 for it. 93. That was the whole total you paid Mr. Jury?— Yes. 94. You paid him less than the value of the improvements?— Yes. 95. Do you not think you have overstated the value of the improvements? —No, I think not. The improvements included felling all the bush, grassing, fencing, building a four-roomed cottage, and two fairly good outbuildings. 96. It is quite obvious that Mr. Jury did not value his improvements at £4? —I think Mr. Jury wanted to get out of it. 97. Mr. Welsh.] That was bush land, and was felled? —Yes. 98. What do you allow for felling and grassing bush land? —I should say, £2 10s. per acre. The Government Valuer, I believe, is allowing that this year. 99. And there is reploughing to do after that?— There was no ploughing; it was all bush land. 100. Fencing? —Yes, there was fencing. 101. And buildings? —Yes, tjiose I have mentioned. 102. The So that you got a present of something in the form of improvements, and the land at 9d. per acre?— Yes. 103. What I cannot understand is how it is that you gentlemen who were so very keen about the lands, and seemed to have been very keen also about anything that affected your pockets— and rightly so —did not know of any other opportunity to convert but that in 1892. You had plenty of talk about it then, and yet there were two subsequent chances, and you come here and tell us you did not know anything about those other opportunities?—l never heard of it. 104. You were so keen about it, and yet you did not know the chance had been revived?— I did not know. I was not holding the lease between 1893 and 1899. 105. You had converted one? —Yes. 106. You say that this other one you got you had not an opportunity to convert, but the opportunity was actually alive at the time?—We did not know about it. I received a notice in 1893 that I had to apply for a new lease if I wished to obtain one before a certain date, and I know a neighbour who held property there who did not apply by that date, and whose application was rejected when he did apply later, but I never heard there were any other opportunities later to come in. 107. Who were the active men who got these two additional chances made law?—l do not know. Had I known, the section I was interested in in 1899 —that held by one of my sons 1 would certainly have had the twenty-one years' lease. I do not like leaseholds, but where there are leaseholds the tenant should have a legal right to all improvements.

56

C. H. JUBY.]

G—2.

Charles Hudgeman Jury sworn and examined. (No. 19.) 1. Mr. Welsh.] You live at Tikorangi?—Yes. 2. And you are a farmer? —Yes. 3. You sold a lease to the last witness, Mr. Foreman? —Yes. 4. A lease of Section part 10, Block X, Tikorangi I —Yes. 5. Do you know what year you sold it in? —1899. 6. And how long had you held the lease at that time?— Thirteen or fourteen years. 7. Now, did you ever hear of any right to convert that lease from a lease under the Act of 1881 to a lease under the Act of 1892? —Yes. 8. When did you hear of that? —I-cannot say exactly. Mr. Foreman told me about it about 1893. 9. Did. you ever hear of that right after then ? —No. Mr. Bell: No questions. Thomas McKenzie sworn and examined. (No. 20.) 1. Mr. Welsh.] You are a farmer, and live at Tikorangi?-—Yes. 2. You hold a lease under the Act of 1881 ?—Yes. 3. And the number of the section? —Section 51, Block VI, Waitara. 4. What is the acreage?—9l acres. 5. And the rent? —2s. 6d. per acre. 6. When was that acquired by you?— About 1886. 7. You purchased from whom?— Joseph Terrill. 8. What condition was it in when it was acquired by you?—lt was all standing bush. 9. Were there any improvements?—No, none whatever. 10. What steps did you take to improve the place when you acquired it? —I felled the bush, grassed it and fenced it, and built a small whare on it. 11. Did you live on the place?—l used to live there occasionally when I was working there. 12. Not permanently? —Oh, no. 13. When you purchased the place what did you understand to be your rights so far as improvements were concerned? —Up to £5 an acre. I understood we only get improvements up to £5 an acre. 14. Did you ever hear of any right of conversion ? —Yes. 15. When? —About the year 1893, I think it would be —the same time as the others round the district applied for a new lease. 16. And did you take any steps to do so?— Yes, I made application for a new lease. 17. Did you continue it? —No. 18. Why not? —Because they proposed to raise the rent from 2s. 6d. to 4s. an acre. 19. You were not able to pay that? —No, because we considered it was unfair. I believe the whole of them except that one section got a reduction. 20. How were things with you financially in that year? —Not too good. 21. Had you been able to pay the rent in the past?—We generally managed to pay the rent, but not always punctually. 22. Was the land paying the rent? —It did not pay it all. I used to go out and work on the road or in the gravel-pit —anywhere that 1 could get work. At that time 6s. a day was about the limit —we only got a few shillings a day then. 23. After 1893 did you hear of any further rights of conversion? —No. 24. When did you first hear of those further lights of conversion? Have you heard of them since? —Yes, in November last, when T went to Manaia to attend a meeting of the lessees. It was on the 10th November, 1911. 25. When did you go to live on the land? —I believe, in the year 1898. 26. You then went to reside permanently on the land? —Yes, T got married, and built a house and went to live there. 27. Are you still on it? —Yes. 28. If you had known of the right of conversion in 1900 would you have been in a better position to consider it then than in 18^*3?—I was in a considerably better position at that time. 29. Had you known in 1900 that you could have surrendered and taken a new lease at 5 per cent, on the unimproved value in 1900, the rent to date back to 1896 and the Public Trustee to be paid for your improvements over £5, would you have considered the ndvisableness of conversion ? J would certainly have had a try at it to see what they wanted to put my rent up to any way. 30. Your land was heavy-bush land? —All heavy bush. 31. In 1893 what was the value of the improvements approximately done by you .upon the land? Well, lam not quite sure, but I believe all the bush was down at that time. If the bush was all down the value would be somewhere between £3 and £4 an acre at that time. 32. And in 1900 what was approximately the value of your own improvements?—My improvements had gone up considerably by that time. I had built a house and sheds, subdivided the place, and ploughed a small portion. Ido not know whether the house should be included. 33. What were the total value of your improvements, including the house, in 1900? —I should say they would be between £6 and £7 an acre. 34. And what is the value of the improvements now?—l should say the improvements now, without going into details, are worth somewhere between £10 and £12 an acre. 35. What kind of farming do you carry on?—I milk on part of it and graze on part of it. 36. Are your milking-sheds on that section ?—No, I have no milking-shed on it. I have milked in the open paddock all the time, but at the beginning of this year my wife's health broke

B—G. 2.

57

G. -2.

58

[T. MCKENZIE

down, and she has been unable to milk in the open. I knew my place was far in excess of £5 an acre, and I did not wish to put further improvements on it, and I applied for permission from the Clifton County Council to build a shed on the road, but they refused to allow it. lam still without a shed, and it is either a case of building a shed on the place or else sell the cows. 37. Mr. Kerr.] You could have built it on wheels and not made it a fixture? —Yes; thank you for that information. 38. Cross-examined by Mr. Bell.] You say your section was composed of heavy bush?— Yes, very heavy. 39. Were there any timber-mills about in those days? —No. 40. But there were timber-mills in other parts of Taranaki? : —Nowhere handy to that place. .41. Your timber was not milled? —No, there was not any of it milled. 42. You have told Mr. Welsh that you did not know of the right to convert. When did Mr. Sarten convert? Was it in 1893? —No. 43. When did he convert?—He held no section at that time. 44. When did he take up his land? —He took tip his land some time after. 45. Some time after you had the opportunity of converting?— Yes, T believe it was some time after that he took another section. 46. Was it in 1892 he took up the land? —1 suppose it was, but lam not sure. 47. Now, you told Mr. Welsh that you knew all along that your improvements were limited to £5 an acre?—l was under that impression. 48. And yet, knowing that, you put on improvements up to £10 or £12 an acre? —Yes. 49. Why?—l could not help myself. It lias been necessary for me to stump and clear a good portion of that land to provide winter feed for the stock. I planted shrubbery to protect the house from the wind and weather, and made other improvements on that place. 50. It was businesslike to put on improvements up to £10 or £12, and it paid you, even although you knew they would be limited to £5 an acre?—l was forced to do it to live on the place; I had no option. 51. Mr. Kerr.] Did you pay anything to Terrill for his interest in the lease? —My stepfather purchased it from Terrill, and I asked him the other day if lie knew what lie paid Terrill, but he was not positive, although he believed it was £20. No improvements had been done when I took the place. Georgk Petch sworn and examined. (No. 21.) 1. Mr. Welsh.] You are a farmer, and live at Waihi, near Waitara?—-Yes. 2. And I think you are a lessee under the Act of 1881 'I —Yes. 3. What is your section? —No. 97, Block V. 4. What is the area of your land? —74 acres. 5. And the rent?—6s. per acre. 6. When did you acquire it?—l think it was in 1897, in January 7. What did you pay for it? —£200. 8. Whom did you buy from? —Mr. James Bayly. 9. Was it improved at that time? —Yes, it was grassed and fenced in, and one division fence across it. 10. What are the improvements at present?— About £9 or £10 an acre, I think. 11. When you purchased you knew of the £5 limit for improvements?— Yes. 12. When you purchased did you know or hear that there was a right to surrender that lease and take another instead under the Act of 1892? —No, I did not. 13. Did you ever hear of that right afterwards? —No, I never heard of it until about a fortnight ago. 14. Have you lived on that land all the time since you have had it? —Yes. 15. And still live on it? —Yes. 16. Cross-examined by Mr. Bell.] You say it was a fortnight ago that you first heard that you had had the right to convert ? —Yes, I never heard of it before. 17. Did you know of a deputation going down to Wellington in 1909 and going into the question of the West Coast leases ?—No, I did not. 18. Do you ever talk with other lessees? —Yes, but none of those living near me knew. 19. Nowadays do you not talk with other lessees? —Yes, of course I do. 20. Do you not ever discuss the question of your leases and grievances?— Yes, most of the time. 21. Do you not know that this particular question has been common talk in the district foi the last three years?—No, I did not know. I first knew when Mr. Welsh wrote to me about it. Francis William Matthews sworn and examined. (No. 22.) 1. Mr. Welsh.] You are a farmer, and live at Tikorangi ? —Yes. 2. And you are a lessee under the Act of 1881 ? —Yes. 3. What is your section?— Section 48, Block VI. 4. And the acreage?—llo acres. 5. And the rent? —Practically 4s. Bd. an acre. 6. When did you acquire your lease?—ln 1904. 7. Whom did you buy it from? —Mrs. Hepworth. 8. What did you pay?—l paid £6 an acre. 9. What were the improvements worth at that time?—l think they were not worth more than £4 an acre. 10. How long had you been in New Zealand at that time? —A little over three years.

59

G.—2.

F. W. MATTHEWS.]

11. Just tell the Commission shortly what led up to your purchasing this lease?—l went to a land agent and told him 1 wanted to buy a small farm, and he took me out to see a West Coast lease under the Act of 1892. 1 knew nothing at all about West Coast leases, and he explained to me that there was a right of renewal after twenty-one years, and full compensation for improvements. He fully explained it, and I quite understood. 1 did not like the farm very much, and did not buy it. I went round to try and find another one, and then went back to this one, but in the meantime it had been sold. The agent then showed me another one and said, " That is -a West Coast lease too." I assumed there was only one kind of West Coast lease, and possibly he did not know this was a different one. I understand there are only four of them in the district, and he may not have known. I understood it was another lease, and 1 agreed to purchase it. We went to a solicitor, and asked him to put it through, and he said I had better go to the Public Trust Office to see that the lease was all right, and that they would tell me there. I went to see Mr. Fisher, who was the agent at that time, but he was in Wellington, and did not arrive back in New Plymouth until the morning 1 had arranged to go and sign. Mrs. Hepworth had advertised the sale and everything was arranged, and at that time there were only two clear working-days between my having to sign the lease and her sale. As soon as I found out from Mr. Fisher that this was another kind of lease not carrying full improvements and no right of renewal I went back to my solicitor and was going to back out, but he said, " It means that you lose your deposit, and possibly have to face a lawsuit." I was in a fix then. I had not got much money, and could not afford to lose my deposit. He asked me what I was going to do, and I said, " I think I can possibly get a living off it," and so I completed, and that is how the matter stands yet. 12. Since you purchased, what improvements have you done to the property?—l have ploughed all but 6 or 7 acres, grassed it, erected a cow-shed and other buildings, I have subdivided it into smaller paddocks, and generally worked the farm in a fairly good manner, I think. 13. What do you estimate the improvements to be worth to-day?—l am not a valuer, but £6 an acre, any way. 14. You do not suggest for a moment that Mr. Fisher misled you? —He was very kind to me, and explained it in a very thorough manner. 15. And since you purchased you have ploughed the land? —Yes. 16. Had it been ploughed before? —The bulk of it had been ploughed before, but it had been very much neglected, and had gone back into fern and rubbish. 17. How much did you replough?—l reploughed it all but about 7or 8 acres. 18. Was it necessary to do that in the interests of good farming?— Yes. 19. And of course you grassed it again, I suppose?— Yes. 20. Cross-examined by Mr. Bell.] You have just told us what you have done in the way of ploughing and so on, and you say that was necessary in the interests of good farming : you have also told us that when you took the lease over it had been allowed to go back, and there was a lot of fern and scrub on it?— Yes. 21. Who had been occupying it before you took it over?— Mrs. Hepworth. 22. A pakeha occupying it? —Yes. 23. And allowing fern and scrub to grow?— Yes. There are some bad farmers amongst the white people as well. 24. I thought it was only the Maoris who allowed noxious weeds to grow?— Not noxious weeds. Fern and scrub is a natural product of the land. It is poor land. 25. You say when you actually purchased this property you knew what the bargain was?— Yes. 26. And you now ask to come in under the Act of 1892? —Yes. 27. You want to get; out of the bargain you made when you purchased the property?— Yes. 28. Why? —Because there were two leases. 29. Having actually gone into the bargain with your eyes open, you think the whole legislation with regard to West Coast leases should be altered because you made a bungle in buying a West Coast lease?—lt is just possible the previous owner did not know it could be converted. 30. What has that got to do with it —you knew what yon were buying?— Yes. The Commission adjourned till 10.30 a.m. next day.

Hawera, Thursday, 23rd May, 1912. Emily Agnes Mitchell sworn and examined. (No. 23.) 1. Mr. Welsh.] You are a widow, and live at Manaia? —Yes. 2. Your husband was David Mitchell?-—Yes. 3. And he took up a lease of land under the Act of 1881? —Yes, of 88 acres —Section 50, Block XIV, Kaupokonui. 4. The rent was 2s. an acre?— Yes. 5. What year did you marry in? —1892. 6. And where did you live? —On the section. 7. When you went to live on the land, what state was it in ? —Partly felled and a house erected. 8. Was it bush country?— Yes. 9. Who had felled the bush? —My husband. 10. And there was a house on it?— Yes, and it was ring-fenced. 11. Now, I think he also acquired a lease of another section under the Act of 1892?— Yes. 12. Do you know when you got that land? —In 1893. 13. What was the acreage? —256 acres. 14. Then, you lived on the 88 acres in 1892? —Yes.

a.—2.

[b, a. Mitchell.

15. How long did you remain there? —About two years. 16. And then you left?— Yes. 17. Why? —Because my husband's health broke down. 18. You went away in search of health for your husband? —Yes. 19. And you came back to Manaia, when? —In 1897. 20. What condition was your husband in when he came back? —Still an invalid. 21. And he never recovered from his illness?— No. 22. And he died in 1905, I think?— Yes. 23. Now, when you came back in 1897, who looked after the business? —Partly both of us. 24. Was your husband in the habit of consulting you in connection with his business ?—Yes 25. Was he able to move about in 1897? —Only in a chair. 26. And after that what was his condition? —He took to bed. 27. And never rose from his bed again? —No. 28. After that who looked after the business? —I did. 29. Did you ever hear of any right that he had to convert his lease from what you call the old Act to the new Act? —Yes, in 1892. •30. Did you take any steps to convert at that time? —No. 31. Why not? —Because circumstances would not allow it; we could not afford it. . 32. After that, did you ever hear of any other right of conversion ?—No. 33. Now, it is stated that the Public Trustee sent a registered letter to each lessee in December, 1898 : did you ever hear of that registered letter? —No. 34. Was your husband about at that time? —No. 35. Where was he? —In bed. 36. The letter was to the effect that you had the right to. change the lease from the Act of 1881 and take a new lease under the Act of 1892 ? —Yes. 37. You never heard of any further right after 1892 or 1893? —No. 38. What are your improvements worth now on the 88 acres? —About £5 an acre. Mr. Bell: No questions. 39. Mr. In regard to the second section of 256 acres which your husband acquired, do you know whether that was converted or not?—No, it was not. Duncan Alfred Poole sworn and examined. (No. 24.) 1. Mr. Welsh.] You are a farmer?— Yes. 2. And you live where? —Takato Road, Auroa. 3. You are one of those who signed the petition to Parliament? —1 am. 4. And you were chairman of the deputation appointed by the petitioners ? —Yes. 5. You hold a lease under the Act of 1881 ?—I do. 6. What is the number of your section? —Section 33, Block XIII, Kaupokonui Survey District. 7. How much is your rent? —£55 16s. per year. 8. That is about 2s. per acre? —Yes. 9. What is the area of your land? —553 acres. 10. When did you acquire your lease?—On Ist July, 1907. 11. Whom did you purchase from?— John Blennerhassett. 12. Where were you living prior to purchasing? —At Matipu, on the Hastings Eoad. 13. Now, whom did you see first of all relative to purchasing the land?—l saw a land agent in Eltham, and told him of my wants. I wanted a place sufficiently large for myself and my sons, and he recommended me John Blennerhassett's lease. I went with the agent to look over the place, afterwards returning to Blennerhassett's house, and I asked him his terms. He told me that he required £4,750 for goodwill and improvements. I immediately saw my lawyer, and asked him to send for the lease, and give me a legal opinion. 14. Before saying what took place with your lawyer, I want you to exhaust what took place between you and Mr. Blennerhassett? —He told me that he required £4,750 for his lease, plus improvements and goodwill, and that 1 had a right to improvements, and also a right of renewal. Of course, I gave him no decided answer then, because it was my intention to go over the land and value his improvements. La;fcer on I went to Eltham, saw my lawyer, and informed him that I liked the place, that I would go over the place and value all the improvements, and that in the meantime he should send to Wellington and get the lease and give me his opinion on it. I went over the property, and carefully valued every improvement, and the improvements totalled up to between £3,000 and £4,000, or approximately a little over £6 per acre. On my return to my lawyer's office again I told him of the value of the improvements. The improvements would leave them not quite £1,000 for the goodwill. His reply to me was that he had looked over the lease, and that it was all right, and that if I got it for that sum —namely, £4,750 —I had, actually speaking, a " snip." I saw Mr. Coutts, the Government Valuer, and in speaking of improvements he said, "Yes, Mr. Poole, anything that enhances the productiveness of the land is an improvement, and will be paid for." 15. What did you do then? —I saw a friend of mine who had been living in the district for many years, and in speaking to me on the subject he said, " Yes, a Mr. Stewart who took a section on the road wrote to Sir Donald McLean with regard to improvements, and Sir Donald McLean telegraphed back to him." [Mr. Bell objects to hearsay evidence being admitted.] As it involved a large expenditure on my part, before I made that expenditure I resolved to get all the information I could in connection with the matter. 16. After your conversation with your friend what did you do? —I was satisfied with the information I had from Mr. Coutts that everything was correct, and I immediately closed with the bargain.

60

D. A. POOLE.]

G.—2.

17. What do you mean when you say you closed with the bargain?—l gave him a cheque for the £4,750. 18. Before paying over the purchase-money, was there any agreement prepared? —A transfer was prepared. 19. Before that was any deposit paid by you?— Yes, a deposit of £100. 20. What happened after that?— Well, when I was satisfied with everything I paid the balance of the money. 21. You said a transfer was prepared?—-Yes. 22. Was there any mortgage on the place? —Yes. 23. What was the amount of the mortgage?—£l,Boo. 24. And the price was £4,750 less the mortgage? —Yes. 25. What did you think you were acquiring for your money?—l naturally thought I was acquiring a lease that I might look upon as a lease in perpetuity —that I should not only be paid for my improvements, but that I had a perfect right to a perpetual renewal. 26. Since you have taken possession, have you made any further improvements on the land? —Yes, I have put improvements on the ground nearly equal to £1,100. 27. And is your property fully improved now?—Oh, no; it will require at least between £2,000 and £3,000 more to place the land in permanent pasture, but since Tinkler's case all improvements have been stopped except those that were absolutely necessary. 28. You had £1,800 from the Advances to Settlers Department when you took over the land? —Yes. 29. Did you make any further arrangements with the lending departments?— Yes. 30. And the result was, what? —I asked them to increase the mortgage by £500. It was simply a test case. They sent Mr. Coutts over the land, and he valued it, and within a week the money was in the bank waiting. 31. That made your total £2,3oo?—Yes. 32. You are not owing that now, are you? —Yes, I, still owe the £2,300. 33. Have you made any reductions since? —Very insignificant ones. 34. The 1-per-cent. sinking fund? —Yes. 35. Gross-examined by Mr. Bell.] Was Mr. Blennerhassett the original lessee? —Yes. 36. Do you know whether he had applied to convert? -I could not say. 37. Who was this agent in Eltham you saw? —Blennerhassett and Son. 38. And they recommended you Mr. Blennerhassett's own land? —Yes. 39. They recommended you the land belonging to the uncle? —Yes. 40. So that any representation they would make would have to be taken with a grain of salt?— Not at all. They made little or no representations on the subject. They asked me to go over the property with them and see the improvements. I went and saw the place, and I was thoroughly satisfied with what I saw. 41. But two most important representations they made to you —one was that you had a perpetual right of renewal? —No, the uncle said that. 42. The agents made no representations?— No. 43. You did not ask what the terms of the lease were? —No. 44. Now, except for the lawyer's opinion, you say you took Mr. Blennerhassett's opinion, and he told you you were to get a perpetual right of renewal and all improvements?—No, not the lawyer; the lawyer said it was all right. 45. Mr. Blennerhassett told you you had a perpetual right of renewal and a right to full compensation ? —Yes. 46. Now, you have repeated what Mr. Coutts said when he discussed the matter with you : can you repeat the words that Mr. Blennerhassett used? —He said, "You have a right not only to a renewal, but you are also paid for all your improvements." 47. Those are his very words? —No one can repeat a conversation verbatim after seven years. 48. Does it occur to you now, Mr. Poole, that, so far as improvements are concerned, a man who did not understand the point in Tinkler's case might understand that improvements were limited to £5 ?—I did not know of any limit. 49. Does it occur to you that a man who knew of the £5 limitation but did not know the point in Tinkler's case might have made that observation with regard to improvements perfectly truthfully?— Well, the question to me is rather obscure. The man that we are speaking of is Mr. Blennerhassett. Tinkler's case was not known when I bought. 50. I think you are an educated man? —I was educated as a mining engineer, and followed my profession for many years. 51. Then, I ought to be able to make myself perfectly clearly understood. Do you know what was the point decided in Tinkler's case? — that all bushfelling, all burning off, grassing, sowing, and bringing into permanent pasture was no improvement. The man who drew up that will must have been dreadfully ignorant. 52. Does it occur to you that a man who, while knowing that the compensation for improvements was limited to £5 an acre, but not knowing the point in Tinkler's case, might have made that observation with regard to improvements which Mr. Blennerhassett made with perfect truthfulness? —Yes, I suppose it would be so. He would make the observation but would not know anything of Tinkler's case, and therefore he understood that all improvements were to be paid for. 53. Who was your lawyer?—G. P. Wake, of Eltham. 54. And you told him to send to Wellington for your lease?— Yes. 55. And you asked him to give you his opinion on it?'—l did. 56. After he had seen the lease you say he made a statement to you about your position?— Nothing about my position. The only thing was in regard to the lease, and, as far as I remember, he said, " It is all right."

61

Or.— 2.

62

[D. A. POOLE.

57. Did you ever tell Mr. Wake that you thought you were getting a perpetual right of renewal?— No. 58. Did you ever tell Mr. Wake that you thought you were getting paid without limitation us to amount for improvements?—No, I never mentioned any of those things. 59. So that Mr. Wake, without knowing what you expected to get, told you you were all right? — Well, that is a curious question to put. There is nothing to be gained by that sort of question. Mr. Wake was satisfied with the lease. 60. What do you say the improvements were worth at the time?— Between £3,000 and £4,000. 61. And what do you say you were paying for the goodwill? —Just about £1,000. 62. Is that what you estimated at the time?— Yes. 63. Have you got a good memory? —I do not say 1 have a good memory. 64. Are you certain you remember estimating that at the time? —I never made that statement at the time; I am mentioning that to you. 65. I asked you what the improvements were worth and what the goodwill was worth, and 1 asked you whether you made that estimate at the time? —Yes, I made that estimate at the time, decidedly. 66. Do you remember whether that was the estimate you made at the time?- —Yes. 67. Are you quite certain? —Yes, quite sure. 68. Then, why did you tell the Lands Committee a different story, and give 'them different figures ? —What figures did 1 give them ? 69. Do you not remember what figures you gave in 1909? —No. 70. I presume you remember the figures you gave when you took the lease; you would give the same in 1909. I will tell you the figures you gave the Lands Committee : " Mr. PoyntonJ] You gave £4,750 for this property? —I did." "How much of that was for the goodwill? —I suppose the goodwill was £600 or £700" ' —Oh, yes, I might have said that. 71. Although it was not true? —A. man does not tell a deliberate untruth. If every lapse should be considered an untruth, then a great many of us would be speaking untruths. 72. Well, I am testing your memory. You have been able to give us with extraordinary accuracy the very words used by two gentlemen in 1907. Now, as a matter of fact, do you know what the unimproved value of the property was at that time? —I do not. 73. Do you know what the unimproved value of the property was in 1909?— Ido not. i have had the papers from the Government, but I do not remember the figures. 74. It appears from the evidence before the Lands Committee that the unimproved value at the time you purchased was £7,271 ?—Yes. 75. The question was discussed with you on that basis, and I suppose L may assume that was the unimproved value? —Yes, you may. 76. Now, £7,271 is worth* about £363 a year? —Yes. 77. And in your lease there were eight and a half years to run?— Yes. 78. And in order to get that £363 a year the rent which you were to pay was £55 6s. a year? —Yes. 79. So that there was considerable goodwill when you take it over eight years and a half. Does it not seem to you that the goodwill was more than £1,000? —Yes. 80. Do you not think it possible you are overestimating your improvements?—l do not. As regards that, where the discrepancy in those figures may come in is in this way : that I estimated at the time the value of the heavy bush to equal £2 10s. per acre. Then the grassing, and no man can possibly sow less than 40 lb. of seed per acre, and that would come, at that rate of 10d. per pound, to £1 13s. Therefore you have £3 16s. per acre. I afterwards foolishly reduced it, and thus you may see the discrepancy which will bring it to some hundreds of pounds less. 81. Am I right in saying that when you tool? up this lease Mr. Wake and Mr. Blennerhassett were not the only two people you discussed the question of compensation for improvements with? —I discuss my business matters with very few. They were the only people interested with me in business matters, and the only people 1 would discuss that matter with except my sons. 82. Let me refer you to some more evidence given before the Lands Committee. You said, " I would point out further than that, that before I expended my all in this land I met a lot of men, and the consequence was that I made my inquiries surer." What have you got to say to that? —I have already said to you-that I met my friend on the road, and he spoke about Sir Donald McLean. When I asked him about it he said, "Yes, you are perfectly correct, and so was Mr. Coutts perfectly correct, that all improvements would be paid for." 83. Is that the only explanation you have got to make? —Only; what more do you want? 84. There is only one other thing I want to refer you to. I understand you are one of the leaders of this movement? —I am. Not by my choice, but by choice of the people. 85. Now, I understand there is no desire to take the Native down —to defraud the Native in any way —to rob him of his birthright?— You are perfectly correct there, but where does their birthright come in here? 86. I understand that the lessees are taking what they consider to be the proper steps, and only what they consider to be the proper steps, to assert what they consider their rights?— Hear, hear ! 87. Now, what would you say to a man who tried to use political influence to get this matter through?—l think that any means that we can take to keep these men upon the land who have brought Taranaki into the position they hay legitimate means we have a perfect right to use. They are not dealing with people whose birthright it is : these people that are claiming this land have as much right to it as we have, and we have as much right to it as they have. They only hold if by occupation, by license; that is the only claim they have to-day. We are the men who have built the roads and bridges and put up the finest factories in the world. Are we to be

D. A. POOLE.]

63

G.—2.

dispossessed of the land for the sake of men who have no more right to it than we have? Most decidedly, I say, give every man his right. 88. I thought you said you went on to the land in 1907. Are you one of the men who built the roads and bridges?— Yes, I have. I have paid my share towards it. 89. You told me that you considered you were entitled to use all legitimate means? —Yes. 90. And then I asked you what would you say of a man who endeavoured to use political influence to get this matter through?—l say it is perfectly right to use all just means he can to get the matter through. 91. Perfectly right?— Yes, perfectly right. 92. I did not expect that answer from you? —Why? 93. Do you consider that that is the answer of a man who is entitled to represent any body of his fellows, whether they Be lessees or not? —Yes, I do. 94. Well, I just want to refer you to this letter, of which, no doubt, you are proud. It will be for the Commission to judge whether it is a proper letter to have been written by you. The letter is as follows : " Taikatu Road, Auroa, 4-th October, 1910.—Dr. Fitchett, Superintendent, Public Trust Office, "Wellington.—Dear Sir, —We purpose visiting Wellington once again to see if it is possible to obtain from the present Government a fulfilment of the promises made to us in regard to our leases. It seems to me that the Premier does not recognize the fact that he is dealing with men who have in the past willingly sacrificed their money or anything that would tend to the advancement of the Seddou or Ward party. It is therefore only natural we should feel the slight the Premier has put on us." That last part of the letter is written with a stroke at the side to call special attention to it?— Yes. 95. The letter proceeds, " You can rest assured that as the Government now stands it cannot afford to alienate 134 families and their followers for the sake of gratifying a Maori (Carroll). Further-, let me emphasize the fact that nothing more fatal to the prosperity of this district could befall it than the dispossessing the present holders of their homes in favour of a pampered class "1 —That is true; a spoonfed class, I should have said. 96. But you said pampered class? —Yes. 97. " Who have not contributed a cent towards the advancement of the district, while they have enjoyed the fruits of our labour, and the results of the increased taxes we have been called upon to pay in the past to make up a deficiency that never would have existed if the lands now held by them (Maoris) had been in the occupation of white men "1 —True again. 98. Although some of them pay rates? —True again. They have lived upon our improvements. 99. " While they have enjoyed the fruits of our labour "?— -That is well put. 100. You were paying a rent to the Native of £55 6s. and reaping as the fruits of your labour ,£363 at least ? —Yes, very good. 101. "I cannot believe that the Premier properly realizes the actual position"?— That is right. 102. "Or he never would trifle with us as he has. Trusting in your continued support, I remain, dear sir, yours obediently, Duncan A. Poole, J. P."? —Yes, J. P. 103. I leave it at that. Did you get an answer to that letter? —No. T heard it had been filed. 104. You got no answer? —There was no necessity for an answer. 105. Well, I think there was the necessity for an answer, and a very stinging answer? — You do! 106. Yes, I do, but better than an answer in favour was no answer at all? 107. Mr. Ke,rrl\ The result of your inquiries from Mr. Blennerhassett was that you thought he had led you to believe that you had a right of renewal and full compensation for the improvements that had been effected upon the land? —Yes, sir. 108. And then you told us that you saw your solicitor, and that while you were going over the land assessing the value of improvements you told him to get the lease up from. Wellington and consider it? —Yes, that is so. 109. What was it he had to consider?— Well, the lease was a good lease. lam not accustomed to law, and I would not dictate to a lawyer. 110. That is not the point : you were much concerned in ascertaining whether the lease provided for what Blennerhassett represented to you you were entitled to? —That would be right. 111. Would you not naturally ask your solicitor to tell you whether it conformed to the representations that had been made to you by Blennerhassett? —T do not know that I did. I thought if there was anything wrong with it my solicitor would have pointed it out. 112. You have told the Commission that you did not ask your lawyer to advise you as to whether or not it contained a right of renewal or whether you were entitled to full value for improvements? —I did not; I merely asked for his opinion. 113. On what? —On the lease as to whether it was good. 114. Do you wish us to understand that you did not put it to him that you wanted to know whether the lease contained a right of renewal? It seems an extraordinary thing that these representations should be made and you wont straight to your solicitor without asking?— Yes. 115. One would naturally have to be advised as to whether you were getting what Blennerhassett represented? —But the lawyer knew well that the representations were made to me. 116. You told us he did not? —The agent, I remember, was in the office with me. 117. But you said the agents never made any representations to you at all? —To me, no. 118. It was the lessee who made the representations?—He made the representations. I do not know that the agents made any representations to me. Mr. Wake must have known of the whole thing. I may have told him what Blennerhassett's conversation was.

[d. a. poole.

G.—2.

119. If it was likely, do you say that Wake did not advise you that you had no right of renewal?—No, he did not advise me that. 120. Do you say he never advised you as to the improvements or as to the right of renewal? —He knew the value 1 put upon them myself, and his words were that it was a cheap thing. George Albert Mehrtens sworn and examined. (No. 25.) 1. Mr. Welsh.] You are a farmer? —Yes. 2. And live where? —Auroa Road, Otakeo. 3. You are the owner of a lease of Section 51, Block 1, Kaupokonui, under the Act of 1881? — Yes, of 125 acres or thereabouts. 4. What is your rent? —2s. 6d. per acre. 5. When did you acquire that land? —In September, L9OB, in partnership with Richard Henry Watkins. 6. What did you pay for it? —£8 an acre. 7. You purchased it from Mr. L. Fleming?— Yes. 8. Did you see the lease before you purchased? —Yes. 9. Did you read it?— Yes. 10. And what did you think after you read it? —We thought we had full improvements, with no limitation, and at the end of our term that it would be put up to public auction. 11. Now, when you purchased, what were the improvements worth?-—About £3 an acre. 12. What are they worth now? —About £8. 13. If you had been aware of the limit of £5 an acre on your improvements, would you have added the improvements that you did? —We would not have purchased. • 14. Did you consult any lawyer in connection with your lease? —No. 15. Who prepared the transfer of the lease? —Mr. Bennett, a lawyer. 16. But you did not consult him? —No. 17. When did you become aware of your true position? —Some two months after Tinkler's case was decided. 18. You do not suggest that any one misled you? —No, no more that what we read in. the lease. It says in the lease that we were to get compensation for substantial improvements according to the regulations, but at that time 1 did not know anything about either one Act or the other. Our opinion was that if we got all substantial improvements at the end of our term, that if it was to be put up for public auction we had every chance of a renewal, as it states in the lease further down that if it is not bid for successfully it has to be arranged between the present holder and the Public Trustee. 19. You are still on the land? —Yes, and intend to stay there if they will let me. 20. How long have 3TIU to run yet?— Three years from the Ist July, 21. What do you do on the land? —Dairying. 22. Is it fully improved yet?—No, not by a long way. 23. It requires more improvement yet?—l consider that to make a practical dairy farm and a good home on it I will have to spend another £5 an acre. 24. That is for good farming? —Real good dairy-farming, and then I do not count on putting manure into the ground. I think if t put that in, and I have long enough to run, I will get the benefit of it. 25. Was your section bush land?— Heavy bush originally. When I went there is was ringfenced and nothing else, and covered with logs. Since then I have stumped from 25 to 30 acres, and laid it down freshly in grass. I also built a house and sheds, subdivided it into nine paddocks, and built a big dam worth £30, and other minor improvements necessary on a dairy farm. 26. You know something about dairy-farming?— Yes. 27. How long have you been on the land farming? —Seven years. 28. What is the effect on this bush land after a period? —At the present time mine all wants stumping, ploughing, clearing, and regrassing. It is growing into Cape-weed or hock-weed and moss. The grass has been down twenty-seven years. 29. Is that common to bush^and? —All round my district it is. All the bush land practically wants renewing, and it is not possible to do it without stumping and ploughing. It means at least an expenditure of £5 an acre. 30. What is the effect of that? Does that bring it into good dairy pasture?— Yes. 31. If it is not done, what happens to that land? —Well, at the present time I can milk fifty cows on my place, but in five years' time if it is let run as it is I think 1 would be only able to milk perhaps thirty, and then not feed them well. It will just grow into weeds and moss. 32. Mr. Kerr] Will it revert into light wood? —No, the cattle will keep that down. 33. Mr. Welsh.] If you treat that land in the way it ought to be treated, in five years' time what will you have?—l think the result will be that I will be able to carry perhaps' sixty cows instead of fifty on my 125 acres. By improving it I can make the carrying-capacity much more than it is at the present time. 34. Now, in that £5 an acre which it would cost to do the best for that land do yon include anything for manures?— No. 35. Why not?— Because, supposing T got a new lease, if I put manure into it T think I will reap the benefit. 36. But it does not mean you will spend money on manures?— No. If I put manure into the land I am going to keep more stock, and I will get the benefit of that. If I were grazing sheep on my farm the land would keep better, and would graze more after, say, three years, than

64

G. H. MEHRTENS.]

65

G.—2.

it did at first; but by grazing dairy cows on it and carting butter-fat away every day you are making the land poorer. 37. Is that common to dairy farms? —Yes. 38. -Take, for instance, the freeholds between here and Manaia? —They are all manuring, and going in more for it every year; they find it necessary. Ido not count that in my improvements, because if I put manure in I think .1 am going to get the benefit from it. That is, if 1 am going to stay there, but if I am not staying there I am not going to put manure in. 39. What was the condition of the fences when you went on your land? —Live fences of boxthorn when I went on to the place. 40. What is there now? —Some young box-thorn I planted myself, and for the wire fences I am going to plant box-thorn. 41. Why? —Because it is necessary to get the shelter. Fencing material is very nearly a thing of the past in the bush; we cannot get posts. We might split up a log and perhaps onehalf you throw on one side, because it is of no use, and it is necessary to plant live fences. 42. That costs money, I suppose?—lt is worth at least £1 a chain the first two years, and it has to be attended to for the first twelve months after that. Mr. Bell: No questions. Henry Parker Best recalled. (No. 26.) 1. Mr. Welsh.] I understand that you desire to alter some evidence you gave to the Commission ?—Yes. 2. When you were under examination you were asked, " Supposing the rent had been fixed at Bs. or 10s. an acre, calculated on the basis of the revaluation in 1900, would you still have been prepared to take up the lease on those terms, and have paid the loading over the period between 1892 and 1900." You desire to alter your answer " Yes "to that? —Yes. 3. What do you wish to say?— Well, I would not be prepared to take it up at that rental. 4. Your answer, then, to the question is "No" instead of "Yes"?— Yes, I say No to that question. Close of evidence for lessees. The Commission adjourned till 10.30 a.m. next day.

Hawera, Friday, 24th May, 1912. Mr. W. H. D. Bell (in opening the case on behalf of the Natives) said, May it please your Worships, I am afraid that in opening this case I shall have to trespass on your patience to a very large extent, because I am not only, as it were, in the position of defendant to the lessees' claim, but I am also in the position of a plaintiff so far as the Natives' claim is concerned—that is to say, I have to make two addresses really in one —first, a defence to my friend's claim, and, secondly, the claim which the Natives make themselves. Now, if I may start right from the beginning of the West Coast reserves history, and trace that history down, I think it will assist the Commission in coming to a conclusion as to the report which it should make to His Excellency. Firstly, this confiscated area was taken under the New Zealand Settlement Act, 1863. In 1879 the Confiscated Lands Inquiry and Maori Prisoners' Trials Act was passed, and that Act recited that the Natives were alleging that promises had been made by the pakeha with regard to the giving-back of the lands, and that those promises were unfulfilled. It also recited that there was considerable disturbance and unrest in the district, and it appointed a Commission to inquire into the matter, and to see whether there were any undertakings which were unfulfilled. That Commission consisted of Sir William Fox and Sir Francis Dillon Bell, and they inquired at very great length into the whole position, and they reported to His Excellency. Altogether, I think, they made three reports to His Excellency, somewhere about 1880. Now in 1880, as a result of the report of that Commission, the. West Coast Settlement, North Island, Act was passed. By section 3 of that Act the Governor was empowered to settle all claims and engagements and to issue Crown grants. By section 4 the Governor was authorized to set apart reserves of two different kinds—firstly, reserves which should be absolutely inalienable; and, secondly, reserves which should be inalienable except according to an Act of Parliament to be thereafter passed. It was intended that an Act should subsequently be passed regulating the terms upon which this second class of reserves should be alienable. This Act of 1880, I ask your Worships especially to notice, was expressly a fulfilment of our obligations to the Natives on the West Coast. If your Worships turn to the reports of the Commission to which I have already referred you will see that not only had we made promises to the Natives which were up to this unfulfilled, but we had, under the New Zealand Settlement Act, 1863, actually taken lands which we had already granted to certain Natives in return for their supporting us in our troubles with the Maoris, so that we had obligations to fulfil. Parliament at that time recognized these obligations, and set up a Commission to inquire into them, and by the Act of 1880 authorized the Governor to settle those obligations. Now, the restrictions on alienation which it was intended by a subsequent Act to put upon a certain class of these reserves were obviously to be, not for the benefit of the pakeha, but for the protection of the Maori. It was intended that when we paid our debts the payment should not be a mere sham, but that the Native should be protected from the pakeha speculator. That is obviously the object of all restrictions on Maori alienation. Now we come to the Act of 1881 the West Coast Settlement Reserves Act—and that Act, together with the regulations made there-

9— G. 2.

G.— 2.

under, prescribed how the Maoris were to be protected and the restrictions on alienation were to be made. There was the whole settlement. We admitted that we were under obligations; we inquired into those obligations; we authorized the Governor to settle those obligations, and by the Act of 1881 we prescribed how the Maori was to be protected when we did fulfil our obligations. Now, the Maori accepted that position, and as a result the difference between the Maori and the pakeha, which had for years disturbed the tranquility of Taranaki, were at an end. I do ask your Worships to remember that the whole transaction was the fulfilment of what we recognized to be our obligations—that in order to insure that the Maoris should get the full benefit of the payment which we made them we constituted ourselves trustee for the Natives. The nation constituted itself trustee for those Natives, and the Public Trustee was made the agent of the nation for the carrying-out of those trusts. The Act of 1881 itself shows that that was so. Section 8, in dealing with the appointment of a Reserves Agent and the duties of such Reserves Agent, says that he is to carry on the business of the reserves for the benefit of the Natives and for the promotion of settlement. Of course, promotion of settlement was necessary for the benefit of the Natives. We had to get white tenants to work the lands if the Native was to get the full advantage from those lands. The Reserves Agent is directed to consult with the leading Natives as to what is to be done in particular cases, as to what is a fair rent, and in regard to other details. It is obvious that we recognized our position as trustee at that time. Now, by section 11 of the Act of 1881 there is power to lease for twenty-one years, and. at the end of that twenty-one years the lease is to be put up for public auction or public tender. That shows that there was then to be no absolute right of renewal in the tenant, and the Governor in Council was, by section 5, given power to make regulations. Section 5 did not give the Governor in Council any powers to deal with the compensation for improvements. Now we come to the regulations which the Governor in Council actually made. Those are the regulations of the 13th February, 1883, which are already before your Worships. Those regulations prescribed not only the terms upon which the leases were to be issued, but also the very form of the lease itself, and the regulations and the lease made provision for compensation for certain improvements up to £5 per acre. Now, I pause here to point out that those regulations were to a certain extent, so far as compensation for improvements was concerned, ultra vires. Subsequently to tnose regulations which I have said were issued on the 13th February, 1883, the amending Act of 1883 was passed :it was passed on the Bth September, 1883. That Act gave power to lease for thirty years, and it gave the Governor in Council power to prescribe the nature and extent of compensation for improvements. Now, this was a departure, as your Worships will see, from the arrangement which, as I have said, settled the difficulties in Taranaki. It is unreasonable to suppose that this departure was in fraud of the Natives. Ido not suggest it, and it is not suggested by the Natives, but the departure from the arrangement originally come to with the Natives must have been because it was found impossible to get tenants on the terms prescribed by the Act of 1881. Now, that fact suggests that, at any rate, some intending tenants had gone fully into the question of what they were to get, and had come to the conclusion that they could not take up the land unless they were to get compensation up to at least £5 an acre in respect of certain improvements; and it also suggests that the State, having regard to the fact that it was trustee for the Natives, had come to the conclusion as to what w r ere fair terms to offer in order to get tenants for that land. Now, at this stage the leases were taken up, and the actual bargain —whether or not the tenants understood it—we will discuss. The actual bargain entered into was this : The lease was to be for thirty j^ears; there was no right of renewal, and the improvements for which compensation was given were limited in character, and compensation was limited to £5 an acre. Now, I just pause here to remind your Worships that the question was raised by my friend as to whether, if one read the lease of 1881 strictly, the limitation was really and is now £5 an acre. I propose to argue later that that contention of my friend's is wrong. I shall also show your Worships that whether right or wrong it has not a material bearing on the question which we have to answer, so that I leave that point out of consideration for the present, and will return to it later. In 1887 there was a reduction of rent made. That reduction was made under the authority of an Order in Council which was gazetted on the 25th October, 1887. The reference is New Zealand Gazette, 1887, p. 1368. Not only was the Public Trustee given power to reduce the rent of tenants who made a declaration that they could not afford to pay their present rents, but interest on rent in arrear was reduced from 15 per cent, to 5 per cent. The regulations which had been made in 1883 prescribed 15 per cent, interest on rent in arrear, and that was reduced by this Order in Council from 15 per cent, to 5 per cent., although the tenants had already made a bargain to pay 15 per cent. Now, that Order in Council, I submit, was obviously ultra vires. It was not validated by an Act which was passed later on in 1887; nothing was said of that Order in Council, nor by an Act referring to these leases which was passed in 1889, but it was expressly validated by the Act of 1892, four years later. Now, we would not take the technical point that the Order in Council was ultra vires — we would not complain so much about that if what that Order in Council did was reasonable, having regard to the fact that the nation was in a position of trust to the Natives. Would a pakeha lessor have granted both the concessions which the Order in Council granted? If the reduction of interest was. intended to refer to rent which should in future be in arrear, then surely it was unnecessary since the rent was being reduced to what the tenants could pay. If the reduction in interest was intended to refer to rent which had already' fallen into arrear, then you have the position of a trustee giving away that which already belongs to the beneficiary. Now, while I am on this question of reduction of rent, I want, to point out to your Worships that before any reduction of rent could be made by the Public Trustee it was necessary for a lessee to make application and a statutory declaration that he could not pay his rent; and notwithstanding the fact that the lessees under the Act of 1881 now come before the Commission and say that

66

G.—2

67

they have been perpetually ignorant of what has been taking place from time to time, 1 think 1 am right in saying that every single lessee under the Act 01 ISSI made his statutory declaration and got his reduction of rent. Moreover, that reduction, as your Worships have already heard, was the result of an agitation, and during that agitation surely the lessees must have discussed one with the other the various terms of their leases. Now we come to the Act of 1892. If the lessee converted under the Act of 1892 he got two concessions —namely, a perpetual right of renewal and compensation for all improvements of any character up to £5 an acre. Mr. Welsh: A T o; no limit. Mr. Bell: 1 repeat that the lessee got compensation for all improvements up to £5 an acre when he converted —that is to say, by the act of conversion. The amount of las improvements which were to be taken into consideration at the date of his conversion were all improvements up to £5 an acre —that is to say, the question, which was subsequently decided in Tinkler's case was done away with so far as the lessees who wanted to convert were concerned. Now, in return for those two concessions the lessee paid sometimes a slightly increased rent, and sometimes a slightly reduced rent. That was what the tenant paid. The Native, on the other hand, was deprived of his right of bidding for his own land, and he had the improvements which belonged to him—that is to say, the improvements other than buildings, fixtures, and fences —actually given away, and in return he received sometimes a slightly increased income and sometimes a slightly reduced income. Surely that was a breach of our trust to the Native, and the Native was never heard. Mr. Ken : Which, of course, is contrary to the provision made in the Act of 1881. Mr. Bell: Contrary to the bargain which we made when we settled their troubles with them; and do not forget this : that the lessee was allowed to ascertain whether it would pay him to convert, and having so ascertained he was allowed to say whether he would convert or not. That is our action as a trustee for the Natives; that is the way we have fulfilled our obligations which in 1880 we admitted that we had. 1 have just said that the tenant had a right to find out first whether it would pay, and then to say whether he would convert; but in case he had made a mistake in his calculations the Act of 1895 gave him another chance —from the 31st October, 1895, to the 30th September, 1896—and in case even then he had made a mistake the Act of 1898 made the right again available from the sth November, 1898, to the 4th November, 1900, and by this last Act the rent was not to be 5 per cent, on the value at the time he converted, but 5 per cent, on a value some years back. The Chairman: 1896. Mr. Bell: Yes, 1896, with rent in arrear —that is to say, the last of those three Acts not only perpetuated a breach of trust, but in perpetuating it it gave the tenant a right to exercise an option four years after that option expired. Now, section Bof the Act of 1892 should never have been passed. The whole Act of 1892, as a matter of fact, should never have been passed; but we are only dealing now with section 8. It was probably due to the pressure of the league which had at that time been formed by the leaseholders, and I think that it must obviously also have been due to the fact that Parliament did not thoroughly understand the position. The breach of trust which was committed in 1892 was perpetuated and exaggerated in 1895 and 1898. Now, your Worships, that is the history of our dealings with the Native, that is how we have carried out the bargain that we made. Now, certain lessees, for reasons which we will inquire into later, did not take any one of those three opportunities to convert, and now they ask that they may be allowed to convert, paying rent assessed as on a basis of 1900 and paying also back rent. The Glvairman: Would that be assessed on the basis of 1900 or assessed on a basis such as they would have been permitted to take up in 1900—namely, 1896? Mr. Bell: No, they say the 1900 valuation. Now, if they asked to be allowed to convert, paying a rent as on a basis of 1912, then they would be asking to have the same opportunity as the people who did convert in 1892 had—that is to say, just as the people in 1892 had to do, they would have to say to themselves, " Here is the present value of the land; I have got to judge for myself whether it is going to rise in value and become more profitable, and if I like I can pay 5 per cent, on the present value." They do not ask that. That would be a more reasonable request; but even if they had made the request that they should come in on a 1912 basis, the obvious answer would be this : firstly, it would be a breach of trust now just as it was a breach of trust in 1892; secondly, the fact that a breach of trust was committed in 1892 is no argument in favour of that breach of trust being repeated in 1912, and there is this in addition, that the breach of trust would be greater now, because while in 1892 the Natives were not really seeking for an opportunity to take up these lands, they are now, as I .shall subsequently show, anxiously awaiting the opportunity to bid for their own lands. But the lessees, in fact, as I have just pointed out, ask for better terms than were offered to those who converted in 1893; they ask to be allowed to exercise an option twelve years after that option expired. They ask, therefore, not only for a new breach of trust, but also for a greater one than has ever been committed even in the history of West Coast leases. Now, what are the reasons given by these lessees for claiming to convert? As I understand them, they may be classified into five different classes. There are five different reasons given by different lessees : firstly, they say that they were misled by their leases, and that they did not understand their position or they would have converted; secondly, some of them say that they did not know of the right of conversion; thirdly, some of them say that they could not then afford to convert; fourthly, some of them say " Why should we be worse off than the people who were wise enough to exercise the right of conversion in 1903 1 " ; and, fifthly, they claim that the State should give them now the opportunity to convert on the ground that it is high public policy that this should be done, that the Native cannot farm satisfactorily, and that unless the land is secured to the present lessees the ruin of Taranaki is at

G.—2

68

hand. 1 am going to deal with that last question subsequently. I will deal now with the first four reasons I have given. Now, let me take a parallel case : a man cuts his land up into sections, and offers it for sale; some of it is sold and some of it is not. Some years later four people -come to him and want to buy at the present value—at the value when they come to him. Now, the first says, " I did not know that an investment which I held when you offered your land for sale was so unprofitable or I would have sold it out and purchased one of your sections " ; the second says, " I did not know that the sections were for sale "; the third says, " I could not afford to buy at the time of the sale " ; and the fourth says, " The people who did buy have done so well out of it that Ido not see why I should not be put in the same position." Now, it is ridiculous to contend that there would be the slightest legal or moral obligation on that owner to dispose of his land even at the present value if he did not want to; but how much more ridiculous if they said to him " We will pay you the price which we would then have paid you for the land, and we will pay you. interest on that price for the back years; and how much more ridiculous still if they nevertheless demanded this concession despite the fact that it would be a breach of trust on the part of the owner to comply with it, and that is the position here. That is absolutely a parallel case. Now, that parallel case meets the first four arguments advanced by the lessees, and I submit it conclusively answers the third and fourth of those arguments —that is to say, the argument that they could not afford to convert when they had the opportunity, and the argument that they do not see why the people who did convert should be better off than they are. 1 am going to leave those two arguments as answered by that parallel case. Now, there remain the two first contentions —namely, that they were misled by the lease, and that they were not in a position to ascertain whether it would pay them to convert; and, secondly, that they did not know of their right of conversion. The lessees, I have no doubt, will say with regard to these first two points that my parallel case is not quite a parallel case, because thej r must argue that it was the duty of the Public Trustee to see that they thoroughly understood their leases, and to see that they knew of the right of conversion. They appear to contend that because these two alleged duties were, as they say, not carried out by the Public Trustee they are entitled to the concessions asked for. Now, with regard to the point that their leases misled them, the Public Trustee, as I have already argued, was the agent of the nation, and the nation was the trustee of the Native, and not the trustee of the lessee. The Public Trustee was there to protect not the lessee but the Native; he was not bound to see that the lessee understood his lease. With regard to the right of conversion, that right was a concession. The lessee had made his bargain, and this concession was something in the nature of a gift. Now, if I pay money as a gift into a man's bank account, and I do not tell him that I have done so, and the bank subsequently goes into liquidation and he cannot get that money out, it would be ridiculous to suppose that he could come and claim on me, and complain that I had not told him the money was there; but if I paid a debt by paying money to the credit of a man's bank account at a bank, and that bank went into liquidation, he would have some moral and possibly some legal claim against me for not having told him so as to give him the opportunity of lifting that money before the bank failed. So long as the right to convert was' really a concession made, and not something done because we had to do it, we were under no moral or legal obligation to advise the lessee. Even supposing there was a duty to see that the lessees understood their leases, and to see that they knew of the right to convert, and even supposing for the moment that that there was a failure to perform one or both of those duties, is that any argument for making amends to the lessees at the expense of the Natives? Whose was the failure, the Natives' or the nation's? But since there was no duty—and I think your Worships will agree there was no duty—those two arguments of the lessees, the first and second which I originally mentioned, fall to the ground; and it should be unnecessary, therefore, to inquire whether the lessees were, in fact, misled by their leases, and whether they, in fact, knew of the right of conversion. The Commission, however, requires you, sirs, to report to His Excellency on the question as to whether the lessees were misled by their leases, and I therefore propose to deal with both those two points. Now, as to whether the lessees were, in fact, misled by their leases. The lease, as I have said, contained provisions : Firstly, that the lease was to be put up to public auction at the end of the term —that is to say, there was no right of renewal; secondly, that only improvements of a certain character were to be paid for; and, thirdly, that compensation for improvements was limited to £5 per acre. Now, those are the only three points upon which the lessees suggest that they misunderstood their leases. Now, as to the first pomt —that the lease contained no right of renewal—the lease itself is perfectly clear upon that point, and, in fact, there is no serious contention that any lessee who looked at his lease was misled. There are only one or two witnesses who say they thought they had the right of renewal —one is Mr. Hastie, who admits he never looked at his lease, and never saw his lease; and the other is Mr. Mackay. The Chairman: Who admitted he bought a pig in a poke. Mr. Bell: Yes, who admitted he bought a pig in a poke; and he was a schoolmaster, and therefore a man who, if he had read the lease, could not have come to any other conclusion but that he had no right of renewal. Now, as to the point that only improvements of a certain character were to be paid for, it is unnecessary to go into that, because a lessee cannot now complain that in balancing the merits of the 1881 and 1892 leases he gave too much value to the 1881 lease, as he thought his improvements were unlimited in character, because the Act of 1910, since Tinkler's case, has now put him in precisely the same position which he alleges he always thought himself to be in, so that we can dismiss that. Then there remains the question of the £5 limitation. Now, what were the means and knowledge with regard to this £5 limitation? The regulations, I submit to your Worships, are perfectly clear, and the lease refers to the regulations. The lease itself shows in one place that certain improvements are not to be paid for. That would surely make any reasonable man studying his position turn to the regulations and find out what

G.—2.

was the meaning of that part of the lease. The map upon which the land was offered for lease contained a clear and definite statement that improvements up to £5, and £5 only, would be compensated for. Posters, I think I am right in saying, were put up in which the same statement was made. Inquiry at the Public Trust Office could have elicited no other answer but that the improvements were limited to £5 an acre. What lawyer, or what reasonable layman, for the matter of that, could possibly have failed to know that there was that limitation of £5 if he had taken the trouble to study his position as a business-man should, and not necessarily as a business-man but as a reasonable man should. But we are told that lawyers were, in fact, deceived. Now, what is the evidence of that? Casual conversations in the street. Mr. Andrews, I think it was, told us that he met Mr. Samuel, a solicitor, and had a casual conversation in the street, and Mr. Andrews is careful to add that it was not in the course of business. The Chairman: And what would the opinion be worth? Mr. Bell: Then, I think 1 am right in saying that the only other evidence of a solicitor's opinion having been taken on the matter at all is the extraordinary opinion which Mr. Poole seems to have obtained. Mr. Poole went to a solicitor, told him that he wanted him to send to Wellington for the lease and give an opinion on it; but Mr. Poole tells us that he omitted to tell the solicitor what he wanted the opinion about, and the opinion was beautifully short and concise—l think it consisted of four words, " It is a ' snip.' ' That is the evidence that is brought before your Worships to show that the lessees were deceived by these leases. There is one further point of evidence, that a loan of £400 was made by Mr. Samuel to Mr. Andrews, which brought Mr. Andrews's total indebtedness up to £700. He already owed £300 to, I think, the Government Advances to Settlers Department. Now, the fact that Mr. Samuel made that loan cannot be taken as an indication of what Mr. Samuel thought was going to be the compensation for improvements, because according to Mr. Andrews's evidence before the Lands Committee the loan from Mr. Samuel biought his indebtedness up to more than the then total value of his improvements; so that Mr. Samuel must obviously have been looking not to the security of the improvements, but to the personal security of Mr. Andrews; and Mr. Andrews is good enough to say that Mr. Samuel was quite justified in relying upon that personal security. Now, we are told that all the lending Departments were deceived. Let us look into that. I will take one example of that—Mr. Hastie's case. Now, Mr. Hastie obtained from the Government Advances to Settlers Department £2,000, and Mr. Hastie held, I think, 500 acres, so that he actually got an advance of £4 an acre. Now, my friend contended that that was clear proof that the Advances to Settlers Department, had been mislead, because he says the Advances to Settlers Department ought only to advance three-fifths of £5 an acre; but he forgets that the provision for a margin which you must allow over a loan is in order to allow for a fall in values. That is the reason for the margin above a loan. Now, suppose the improvements on a man's place were £8 6s. Bd. per acre, it would be quite safe to lend £5, which is three-fifths of £8 6s. Bd., because if there is a fall in value the tenant nevertheless gets the whole of £5. Even if the improvements go down in value it does not stop the man getting his £5; so that a lending Department is perfectly justified in lending three-fifths of the value of the improvements provided the maximum loan does not exceed £5. Mr. Welsh: You say the lending Department can lend up to the full £5, and the Public Trustee said exactly the reverse at the time. Mr. Bell: That is a matter of argument. Mr. Welsh: Are you contending that the Department can lend up to £5. Mr. Bell: I contend that the lending Department can lend up to three-fifths, provided the three-fifths does not exceed £5. If there was a duty on the Public Trustee to give the lessees reasonable facilities of knowing that they were limited to £5 an acre, then I submit, your Worships, that the Public Trustee fully discharged that duty. He put up these notices, the regulations show the £5, and the maps contained a statement as to the £5 basis. If after that the lessees bought a pig in a poke, are they to be compensated at the expense of the Natives? But let us see whether, in fact, they were deceived. I submit that the great majority, if not all of the lessees, knew of the £5 limitation. Now, let us analyse the evidence. There are, I think I am right in saying, twenty witnesses who gave evidence with reference to this £5 limitation. Now, out of those twenty witnesses the following twelve knew of the £5 limitation, and admitted that they knew: J. Best,. H. P. Best, A. Newell, R. Palmer, P. P. Hughson, E. J. Dudley, J. Anderson, J. J. Elwin, W. L. Luseombe, J. W. Foreman, T. McKenzie, and G. Petch; and of those witnesses some at least say that the £5 limitation was very generally known. Eight of the twenty witnesses on this subject say that they did not know of the £5 limitation. They are: C. Andrews, W. Kelly, E. Hastie, T. Clarke, J. Mackay, F. Matthews, D. Poole, and G. Mehrtens. Now, at the risk of straining your Worships' patience, I propose to deal with each of those witnesses seriatim. First, as to Clarke :He purchased in 1899 125 acres. The then value of his improvements was £300, and the price he paid was £550, so that he paid £200 for the goodwill. He says that the present value of his improvements is £700 Therefore, your Worships will see, firstly, that he was not misled into paying anything like as much as £5 an acre for his improvements when he bought; and even now, suppose nothing is done for him, and suppose we take his own value for his improvements—namely, £700 on 125 acres —and, mind you, there will be some depreciation of those improvements before the end of the term suppose we assume that those improvements will not depreciate and his own valuation is right, he will only be a loser so far as his improvements are concerned of £75 at the end of his term. Now, as to Kelly :He has 114 acres. He is an original lessee, and he has subleased for the past eleven or twelve years. His lease expires in 1916, so he has some years yet to run; and taking what we have heard in the course of evidence about the profits made when you sublease these leases, he is probably making and will make a pretty good thing out of it. He says that he never heard of the right of conversion even in F892 : he is one of the very rare witnesses who

69

G.—2.

say that. Your Worships will remember that he is particularly hard of hearing. Now, Kelly, I submit, must be taken as an exceptional case, and he is the only one of his kind that your Worships will have to deal with. Now, as to Hastie: He bought in 1897, when, according to the evidence of most of the witnesses, the whole of the terms of the lease except the point in • Tinkler's case were generally known. He bought from Milne, who had already applied to convert. Now, Milne, at least, must have understood the position. Hastie complains that he was misled by Milne into thinking that he had got a perpetual right of renewal and full compensation for improvements. Now, your Worships will remember that Hastie told us that his father was the man who really did the business, and that he relied on his father, and it is very unlikely that Hastie's father thought they were getting a perpetual right of renewal, or that Milne told him he was, because if they had a, perpetual right of renewal the goodwill would be very valuable. Hastie tells us that they paid £2,200 for the improvements and goodwill, and he goes on to tell us that at that time the improvements alone were worth £2,250. Hastie complains that his improvements are now worth nearly £7 an acre, but he admits that he was not misled by his lease, because he never saw his lease until 1905, after a conversation with Mr. Fisher, when Mr. Fisher told him the whole position. He then goes on to say that had he seen the lease and read it over and found he had not the right of a perpetual renewal he would never have put on so much improvement, so that lie only has himself to blame. He is one of the lessees who complains that the Government Advances to Settlers Department was misled, and I think it is suggested that because the lending Departments were misled the lessees relied to a certain extent upon the lending Departments—on the fact that the lending Departments thought there was no limitation. Now, in Hastie's case we have done with the amount of the loan, but in his case the advance was made to him at the end of 1905, after he tells us he knew his whole position. 1 ought to add, when dealing with this question of the' advance to Hastie, that besides the improvements, according to Hastie, at the time the advance was made the goodwill of the lease was worth £67 10s. a year for four years. That was an additional security, if the Department wished to look to it. Now, as to Andrews :He says that Mr. Rennell misled him in the first place. He tells" us that Mr. Rennell said he would get full compensation for improvements, and that he would get a perpetual right of renewal. Now, that is extraordinarily unlikely when you come to think that this Mr. Rennell was the Trust Agent who was giving out these leases every day, and who was leasing the land on a plan which contained a statement as to the £5 limitation, and a statement that there was no perpetual right of renewal. Andrews says that he knew of the 1892 right of conversion, and he knew that if he converted he would be restricted to £5 an acre when they were arranging to convert. Section 8 of the Act of 1892 says that the tenant when he converts is to be only charged rent on so much of the improvements as are not within the £5 an acre. He knew of that £5 an acre limitation in the 1892 Act, but this did not cause him to inquire or to consider whether he was already restricted to £5 an acre, although he tells us, under cross-examination, that it did strike him as odd. He admits that when he knew of this right of conversion he made no inquiries as to his position except perhaps in the way of casual conversations with Mr. Samuel and Mr. Fisher. Now, Mr. Fisher was not the Reserves Agent till 1895, so that the conversation with Mr. Fisher could not, have had any effect on whether he converted or not. Andrews admits that quite possibly the conversation with Mr. Samuel was also after the first right to convert had expired—he says he does not think it was, but it may have been. Andrews goes on to say that Mr. Samuel lent him £400 on top of £300 which he already had; but I have already pointed out to your Worships that the fact of this loan cannot be taken as an indication of the state of Samuel's mind, even if the state of his mind were in the least material to this inquiry. Now, just let me revert to those three points in Andrews's evidence : First, that Mr. Rennell misled him; second, that he knew of the right to convert in 1892, but did not inquire as to his position; and, thirdly, that he had subsequent conversations with Mr. Fisher and Mr. Samuel. Now, the conversation with Mr. Rennell, even if it is true, which is inconceivable, was a good many years before the right of conversion came along. The conversation with Mr. Fisher was two years at least after the first right had expired, and the conversation with Mr. Samuel may have been after the right of conversion expired. Therefore, Andrews is alone to blame, since he could have discovered his position by discussing it with other lessees, or —and your Worships will remember that a trreat number of lessees were then converting, and a great number who knew their position thoroughly well did not convert —he could have gone and inquired at the Public Trust Office. He did neither of those things; and are the Natives to be penalized for that? As a matter of fact, I say at once that I do not believe that Andrews was ignorant; it is inconceivable that he did not discuss his position with other lessees who knew their position perfectly well, and just to test Andrews's credibility, your Worships will not have forgotten his shuffling when I confronted him with the evidence which he gave before the Lands Committee as to what took place on the signing of the lease. Your Worships will not forget that he found it necessary to reconcile the evidence which he gave here and the evidence which he gave before the Lands Committee by drawing a distinction between reading the lease and having it read to him. Now, I think, and I submit that quite possibly Andrews was telling nearer the truth before the Lands Committee when be said he did not read his lease than he was before this Commission when he said he read it and was dissatisfied with it because when questioned as to the reason for his dissatisfaction his answer was this : that he found that only buildings, fixtures, and fences were to be paid for. Now, that was a point which, according to the lessees, was only discovered when Tinkler's case was decided, and Andrews himself says that Tinkler's case came as a complete surprise to him. Your Worships will not have forgotten Andrews's shuffling when lie was confronted with the evidence before the Lands Committee as to value of his improvements at the time he received this loan from Mr. Samuel. Directly he saw the point of my question he was anxious to show that his improvements showed

70

71

G.—2

a margin above the loan which he received. That is not the tale he told before the Lands Committee. Now, there is a point I had meant to make as showing an inconsistency in my friend's argument, and I just mention it here as showing another point in Andrews's evidence. My friend in one part of his argument, obviously having in mind a class of lessees, says that had they known their position obviously they would have converted, for look how cheap it was for them to convert seeing that their improvements in 1892 were not up to £5 an acre. At another place in his argument he has in mind a different class of lessees, and he says some of those lessees could not convert because it, was too expensive. Now, Mr. Andrews fits both those arguments to his own case, after having heard my friend open. You will find that at one place he says that his improvements were not up to £5 an acre, and at another place he says that there would have been too much to pay the Public Trustee if he had converted. Now, I have said already that it is inconceivable the statement which lie makes that Mr. Rennell deceived him; and it is not simply a failure of memory, because Mr. Andrews can go into the box and say exactly what Rennell told him he could get. I have already mentioned to your Worships that Andrews says Mr. Fisher misled him. Mr. Fisher will have to go into the box later on, and we will see what he has got to say to that. Then we come to Mackay :He purchased in 1908 147 acres, and he paid £800. Now, he was not paying £800 for improvements alone, because, as your Worships will see in a moment or two, his improvements at a subsequent date were not worth £5 an acre. He thoughtJie was getting a perpetual right of renewal; that in the case of a schoolmaster with the lease saying perfectly clearly that there is no such right. He bought in April, 1908, and by January, 1909, he knew of the £5 limitation on his own admission. A letter was written by him in January, 1909, to which I referred in his evidence. That letter states that his improvements are then nearly up to £5 an acre. Thereafter he put on a house worth £450, and he says that he would not have spent so much in improvements had he known of the £5 limitation. Mr. Mackay piously informs us that he is far from wishing to rob the Maori, and why? Because the Maori has never robbed him, and has never shown him anything but kindness. Now, as to Matthews :He bought in 1904 110 acres. It was too late then to convert, and he never had the right. He paid £6 an acre. The improvements at that time were worth £4. Therefore, he is not in the class of those who say that they paid more than £5 an acre for improvements because they thought they were to get more than £5 compensation. The present value of his improvements is £6 an acre, and, therefore, even if his own valuation is correct, he would not lose more at the end of his lease than £110. As to Mehrtens :He bought 125 acres in September, 1908. He paid £8 an acre, but he tells you that the improvements at that time were worth £3 an acre. The present value of his improvements is £8 an acre, so that he has actually put on an additional £5. Now, he told us that he found out about the £5 limitation soon after Tinkler's case. Tinkler's case was in 1909, so that a great part of his improvements must have been put on since he knew of the £5 limitation. Now, as to Mr. Poole: He purchased in 1907 553 acres, and he tells us that lie was misled by what Coutts, the Government Valuer, and Blennerhassett, the vendor, told him. Now, I asked him for the very words which had been used by Coutts and Blennerhassett, and I submit to your Worships that those words were not intended to refer to the £5 limitation, but were intended to refer to the character of the improvements for which compensation was to be given. He tells us that he thought he had the right of renewal, and he tells us at the same time that he is a man of education. Therefore, he cannot possibly have looked at his lease, and, therefore, he cannot have been misled by it. He took a solicitor's opinion without telling the solicitor what he wanted the opinion about, and I leave Mr. Poole's evidence with the remark that it is discredited by the letter to which I referred during his cross-examination. Now, to sum up that analysis: there are twenty lessees giving evidence on this point; there are twelve who admit that they knew of the £5 limitation; and eight who deny that they knew it when they took up the lease, or when they purchased. Of those eight, Clarke, on his own estimate, gets all but £75 of his improvements; Matthews, on his own estimate, gets all but £110, and those estimates would not tend to be low. Mehrtens appears to have put on a considerable amount of improvements after he knew of the £5 limitation. Kelly's is an exceptional case, but, I do not intend to deal with him beyond saying that he is in all probability making a very good thing out of his lease. Hastie was not misled by the lease, because he never saw it, and lie admits that had he seen the lease he would not have spent anything over £5 an acre. Andrews had ample means of knowing, and ought to have known, and I have already told your Worships that I submit he did know. As to Poole, I have said I would leave him with a reference to the letter I have read ; and with regard to Mackay, I do not intend to deal with him again. Of those eis;ht, six are purchasers of leases and only two are original lessees, and most of the purchasers have purchased fairly recently. Now, one argument, which was used before the Lands Committee was that the purchasers of leases had given more than £5 an acre for improvements. Well, let me refer to the six purchasers. Clarke, who purchased 125 acres in 1899, gave for the improvements and goodwill £55. He says that the amount attributable to improvements is £300; that is considerably less than £5 per acre. Hastie purchased 500 acres, and gave in 1897 for improvements and goodwill £2,200, which is less than £5 an acre. In 1908 Mackav purchased 147 acres, and in 1909 he writes to the Public Trustee to the effect that his improvements are then approaching £5. In 1904 Matthews purchased 110 acres, giving for the improvements and goodwill £6, and he says that the then, value of his improvements was £4. Tn 1908 Mehrtens purchased 125 acres at £8, and he says that the then value of his improvements was £3. In 1907 Mr. Poole purchased 553 acres, and he says that the amount of purchase-money which he attributes to improvements is just about £6 an acre. Poole is the only one of the purchasers who have come before your Worships saying that they did not know of the £5 limitation who says he gave more than £5 an acre for improvements, and he only gave £6. Now, while I am on this question of the £5 limitation, I just want to refer to the evidence of Mr. Elwin, because your Worships will remember I put Mr. Elwin in the list of those who said they knew of the £5 limitation.

G.—2.

Mr. Kerr: And he also admitted that it was on the plans that were issued. Mr. Bell: That is so. Mr. Kerr: Of course he converted, and consequently he had no status at all. Mr. Bell: Well, he came before your Worships as a witness from outside, giving his memory of what had taken place; but, if your Worships remember, he first stated he did not know of the £5 limitation—never knew of it when he took up his lease; and then subsequently, under crossexamination, he remembered quite clearly that it was on the maps on which he took up his lease. That is the only point I want to make so far as Elwin is concerned, except' that, while I am referring to Elwin, I want to deal with the question of flax. The reason for my question as to flax was that I had only just before that had pointed out to me that there were flax-mills in the district at the time when these lessees took up the land, and there were also timber mills. Now, a lot has been said about the hardships of the lessees, and what they had to pay to put their land down in grass, but nothing has been said about the profits which they made out of the sale of the timber and the sale of the flax. Elwin was the first witness of whom it occurred to me to ask the question, and when Elwin answered that question and said that he had burnt all his flax I did not know that there was any doubt but that he was telling the truth. It was only subsequently that I discovered a witness who I called in rebuttal. Perhaps the letter to which I have already referred your Worships, which was written afterwards, and in which he is so careful to explain that the question of flax can have no bearing on the inquiries of the Commission, was written for just the same reason that caused Mr. Elwin to say in evidence what I am going to call further evidence in regard to —that is to say, the reason was thai! he saw what a very material bearing it does have upon the inquiry. Now, I turn, if your Worships please, to the question as to the lessees' knowledge of their right to convert. There will be evidence put before your Worships that the Public Trustee, by registered letter, circularized the lessees informing them of their right to convert. There are now records on the Public Trust file of the names of the lessees to whom those circulars were sent by registered letter. There are also records on the Public Trust file of the advertisements which were placed in the local papers informing the lessees of their right to convert and of their recurring rights to convert —that is to say, when the rights were revived. Now, if the Public Trustee had a duty to perform—if he was under an obligation to tell the lessees of their right to convert and to see that they knew it— it is quite clear that he performed that duty, and, as a matter of fact, it is inconceivable that the lessees did not know. I am bound to admit that all through this hearing I have puzzled my brains for an explanation of the almost entire unanimity of the lessees in saying that, although they knew of the right in 1892, they never knew or heard of its revival. Mr. Kerr: Nor received notice from the Public Trustee. Mr. Bell: Nor received notice nor heard of the revival. Acts like the Act of 1895 and the section in the Act of 1898 do not pass themselves; they are due invariably to an agitation amongst the people interested. The Chairman: Pressure. Mr. Bell: I do not mean mean improper pressure. Now, in regard to the circulars, I am going to call Mr. Fisher. I have no doubt his records show that the circulars were sent out in registered letters. I have already pointed out to your Worships that when it was a question of a reduction of rent there do not seem to have been any lessees who did not know and who did not take the necessary steps to get that reduction. Now, Mr. Luscombe, who gave evidence at New Plymouth, told us that the question of the £5 limitation was widely discussed each time the right to convert was revived —your Worships will remember that; and T think it was Anderson who said that he believes he got a notice from the Public Trustee in 1898 telling him of his right to convert. Now, I have been arguing that the lessees not only had ample means of knowing, but did know their position, w r ith the possible exception of the point in Tinkler's case, which, as I have already pointed out to your Worships, is now of no material bearing on this inquiry. I have taken that inquiry as fully as I possibly could, because the terms of the Commission reqtiire it; but I have already argued that the lessees, in order to succeed, will have to show, firstly, that they were deceived; secondly, that the Public Trustee was under a duty to spoon-feed them and see that they knew the terms of the leases and their rights to convert; thirdly, that they have been prejudiced by the failure of the Public Trustee to spoon-feed them; and, fourthly, that the sins of the Public Trustee should be visited not on the nation, which is the actual trustee of the Native, but upon the Natives themselves, by whittling away further the right to compete for their own lands, which we virtually undertook to give them when we settled the Taranaki dispute. Now, those are four hurdles which I suggest the lessees have got to clear, and they have got to clear them in that order. I suggest that the second and third and fourth hurdles are insuperable, and I also submit that the lessees have not yet succeeded in clearing the first hurdle. T turn now for a moment to a consideration of mv friend's opening. Your Worships will remember that my friend took a distinction between " improvements " and " substantial improvements." He said that he thinks the £5 limitation refers only to buildings, fixtures, and fences, and that so far as other substantial improvements are concerned the lessee is entitled to full compensation, whatever the amount may be. Now, that would involve, if that were so, a departure from the ordinary rule of construction, which is that the adjective limits the noun — that is to say, substantial improvements are a class or a species of improvements, and I do suggest that my friend's opinion on that point is incorrect. But suppose my friend is right, if any lessee took that fine technical distinction when he first took up his lease, that lessee has got nothing to complain about, because he is entitled to go to a Court of law and get what he expected to get. If he did not take that fine distinction, and my friend is right, he is entitled to go to a Court of law and get more than he expected to get; and, as a matter of fact, there is no evidence whatever of any lessee having given any consideration to that question at all—the

72

G.—2.

difference between " improvements " and " substantial improvements." Now, my friend says that the draftsman of the lease obviously could not have known of the regulation. Well, I remind your Worships that the form of the lease is part of the regulations, and was. published with them, and presumably was the simultaneous work of the same draftsman. Then my friend argued that the fact that the tenants had put more than £5 worth of improvements on their land and did not convert was conclusive proof that they did not know of the £5 limitation. Witness after witness has come before your Worships and said, " I knew of the £5 limitation all along, but I did not convert because I did not think it would pay me, and I have put on improvements substantially in excess of £5." Asked why he did it, knowing that lie was limited to £5, he said—of course, it is the obvious answer and the only reasonable answer —" It is a business proposition for me to do it, and it will pay itself out before the end of the lease." Then my friend says that the fact that the lessees did not convert, and went on improving is conclusive evidence that they did not know of the right to convert. That argument also is answered by the evidence to which I have just referred. He tells your Worships that from the evidence he will lead your Worships will find that in some cases the lessees have been misled, so that they have actually gone to the extent of putting £12 an acre on their land; and the only evidence of a man having put £12 an acre in improvements on his land is the evidence of a man who said he knew of the £5 limitation all along, and decided not to convert. My friend makes a strong point of the fact that the Public Trustee's memorandum is what the Public Trustee recommends as a fair thing. Now, if your Worships will refer to the Public Trust file you will find a report to Parliament by the Public Trustee in 1909 (Parliamentary Paper, 1909, 8.-9 a). The Public Trustee gives this view : " (1.) Opportunities have been several times given to the tenants to change their tenure, but they did not accept them. Paragraph (k) of subsection (3) of section Bof the Act of 1892 gave them twelve months in which to change. By section 10 of the Native Reserves Act Amendment Act, 1895, this term was extended to four years, and by section 20 of the Reserves, Endowments, and Crown and Native Lands Exchange, Sale, Disposal, and Enabling Act, 1898, two more years were given. The new rentals of three leases which fell due this year show what a low rent the tenants were paying under the old leases, and why they were reluctant to change : Old rentals, £157 Is. Id.; new, £649 6s, 6d. (2.) In dealing with these reserves there w 7 as not sufficient land reserved for the occupation of the Natives if they should at any future time desire to farm their lands. Suitable blocks should have been selected and leased for long terms, but not perpetually. As these leases fell in, the blocks in their improved condition could have been offered to the Natives. The peculiarity of the tenure of the 1881 and 1887 Acts gives the Natives an opportunity of selecting some of the leaseholds for farming. Under the 1892 Act renewals are automatic, the rent, apart from the value of the improvements, being fixed by arbitration. There is therefore no chance of a Native getting into occupation of one of the leaseholds under that Act unless he buys out the tenant. Under the earlier Acts the value of the improvements up to £5 per acre is fixed by arbitration, and the rent by public competition. As the Natives receive back the rent, if they desire to compete they can, of course, outbid any one else, and can again get into occupation of the leaseholds by paying the lessee for the improvements, which are limited to £5 per acre. This is the only chance they have of getting suitably sized farms in their own districts, and, although they may not take advantage of it, they should not be deprived of the opportunity by changing the tenure. The leases are fairly scattered throughout the reserves area, and are of good land. The number of leaseholds under the 1881 Act is 135; area, 18,399 acres. Authority should be given to the Public Trustee to advance sufficient to pay for the improvements if the Native owners desire to purchase them. There would be ample security." He says just before that, "An effort will probably be made to put the leases under the former Acts on the same basis as those granted under the Act of 1892; but this should not be done, for these reasons." That was the Public Trustee's view in 1909. If your Worships will turn to the Public Trustee's evidence before the Lands Committee you will see that he has modified that view, because, as he says, he did not, when he wrote the report, know that the lessees had been misled as to the £5 per acre —that is to say, the memo, upon which my friend relies is approved by the Public Trustee only because he believed the lessees' story that every lessee in the country had been misled into thinking that he was going to get full compensation for improvements. Now, my friend says also that if nothing is recommended by your Worships and nothing done by Parliament, the Native at the end of the lease will not be able to get on to the land. Very well, then, compare that with the argument used by the lessees before the Lands Committee, and your Worships will find that one of their main arguments then was that the Native, who will be putting his own rent into his own pocket, would be able to outbid them very very easily; but if they are right now in thinking that, the Native cannot outbid them—and I think at present the Native cannot in a great many instances outbid them without the advance which' we are going to ask. for —Hastie's case would seem to suggest that it is possible under certain circumstances for the 1881 lessee to retain his lease. Hastie is the only one who has given evidence whose lease has fallen in, and he has got it back again ; but if the Native cannot get on to his own land if nothing is done, why all this anxiety on the part of the lessees? Why the anxiety to prove what a bad farmer the Native is? And then, lastly, my friend says that the lessees are not here to work a land-grabbing scheme. Mr. Elwin tells us in a letter written for the information of the Commissioners that it was and has been from the first distinctly understood that the Natives' lands should pass from them for ever, and he adds that therefore the claims of the indolent half-breeds have no standing either in law or in equity. That seems to me to be hardly consistent with the suggestion that the lessees are not working a land-grabbing scheme. Now such, if your Worships please, is the lessees' case. That case is based upon typical evidence. You have had put before you a sample of what evidence the lessees can give, but your Worships will not forget that that sample has been drawn by the lessees most favourably to themselves, and if I might use a Taranaki expres-

10-α, %

73

G.—2.

sion, the sample is deplorably wanting in butter-fat. Your Worships will have your attention directed to the fact that the sample omits to contain any representation of people who have bought quite recently. I have not been able yet to go fully into the question of very recent purchases, but I did search'one title in New Plymouth, and one of the lessees who will be benefited if the lessees' application goes through —the application based on the ground that all lessees were misled —is a man who purchased a lease in May, 1911. Well, I conclude my references to the lessees' case by saying that I should think it seldom happens that a case is so completely refuted by its own evidence. Now, before dealing with the question of public policy—namely, the question as to whether the Natives can or cannot faim the lands —I just want to refer to the position of the Public Trustee in the matter. I have done what I have been able to in the way of examining the files and following the course of business of the Public Trustee throughout these leases, and I do not think, and the Natives do not believe, that the Public Trustee has wilfully done anything opposed to their interests'. I do not think he has realized that things have taken place opposed to their interests, and I think quite possibly if he had realized that he would have used his influence to prevent it. Your Worships will remember that when I traced the history of these West Coast leases I have traced a history in which never once has any concession been made to the Natives on their bargain, and from time to time what we gave the Natives we have whittled away. Now, the Public Trustee was the man who ought to have known the whole position; he ought to have seen exactly where we stood, and he ought to have seen that the Act of 1892 was wrong, that the Act of 1895 was wrong, that the Act of 1898 was wrong, that the reduction of rent was wrong, that the reduction of interest was wrong, and a departure from the bargain which we had already made, and that the Act of 1910, reversing Tinkler's case ' — although we do not object to it now — was wrong. He should have resisted each one of those measures. I do not find that he has in any case resisted those measures, and, your Worships, a reference to the Public Trust files will bear out what I say. But the Natives have no hostility to the Public Trustee. They think he might have safeguarded their interests more than he has done, but they do not suggest that he has for a moment really realized what was being done. Now, some evidence has been given that the Public Trustee has always been very good to the lessees, and has never pressed them for their rent. I think it is time it was realized that it is the duty of the trustee to see that the beneficiary gets his rent promptly, and that the tenant pays it promptly. And now I only have, in this connection, to refer to two more matters. The first is a letter in which Mr. Fisher, who was then Reserves Agent, in advisine the Public Trust Office as to what should be done under a certain set of circumstances with reference to an application by a certain Mrs. McGuire, recommends a certain course, and says that he does so despite a lawyer's opinion to the contrary, and adds, " Mrs. McGuire is the wife of the local member." There is no evidence that he influenced the judgment of any one, or that Mr. Fisher's judgment was influenced, but such a statement of that sort ought not to be contained in any letter which appears upon the file of any trust whatever; and I do express regret that there is no reply from the Public Trustee calling attention to this fact, and reprimanding Mr. Fisher. Then, the last point is the question of that letter of Mr. Poole's. 1 am not going to read the Public Trustee a lesson on his duties, but I would just say that if I were a beneficiary I should have felt happier if I had known that a letter such as Mr. Poole's had received by return post a stinging reply. Now, let me say while still dealing with the Public Trust Office, that so far as I can learn from my clients, Mr. Zachariah is carrying out his duties admirably. I hope he will not think lam condescending to him, but I have had opportunities of finding this out such as he has perhaps not had. It seems to me that the local administration of Natives' affairs is done as well as can be expected under the existing state of the law. Your Worships will remember that I dealt with the special reasons why the lessees claimed that the State should once more break its faith with the Natives, and I have dealt with all the reasons which they gave except one. That reason is the allegation that it is public policy to leave the present lessees on the lands that they are leasing, and to prevent the Native from having the opportunity which we guaranteed him, on the ground that the Native cannot satisfactorily farm that land. To me there is something rather humorous in finding these men —who seek to escape from a bargain which they have entered into, who urged their demands upon Parliament when the Natives were not heard, and one at least of whom sought to bring political influence to bear —urging their claims once more before this Commission, and some of them giving evidence contrary to fact, all in the sacred cause of saving the Native from himself. Now, I have urged that the nation is a trustee for these Natives. Let me again take a parallel case : suppose any one of these Natives was a pakeha, and there was just an ordinary pakeha trustee for him, and during the beneficiary's minority the land had been leased on terms similar to those of the 1881 Act. Now, the tenant before the expiry of the term, finding that the beneficiary is intending to compete when the lease is put up to auction, goes to the trustee and says, "You must not put this land up to auction; you must alter the terms of my lease." The trustee says, "Why ?" The tenant says, "Because the beneficiary cannot farm successfully." The trustee obviously replies, " But is that any reason why he should not get the benefit of the competition which must tend to raise the rent? " "But," replies the tenant, "the beneficiary will beat me in the bidding, because the rent is going back into his own pocket." The trustee surely replies, "Why on earth should he not; and anyhow, although the rent will be going back into his own pocket, he is actually paying because he is foregoing that which he would otherwise lie receiving from you '' Then the tenant goes on to say, " But he will not farm well enough to pay that rent; he will be actually a loser; it will mean that the beneficiary will be poorer while in possession of that land, because he will not be able to make so much as I would be prepared to pay rent, and while he is in possession of the land he will allow the land to go back, and consequently he will not make so much out of it afterwards," What is the reply of the trustee? Surely the trustee replies to the tenant, " That

Referred to again on p. 78.

74

G.—2.

is no business of yours — : that is purely a matter between me, the trustee, and the beneficiary." I think with that we can leave the lessees out of this consideration altogether, and take it purely as.a matter between the nation on the one hand and the Maori on the other. Now, I have suggested that the nation entered into a bargain to give the Native the right to compete —that is to say, it said, " Those are the terms of settlement," and the Native said, " Yes." We are bound to give the Native the right to compete. Before the nation fails to carry out that obligation must not the nation show that something has occurred since then to make it against the Native's interest that the bargain should be carried out. Now, perhaps the nation is right to inquire as to whether anything has occurred, and the Natives welcome that inquiry. I have no evidence to meet on the subject, because you will remember that the lessees whom I cross-examined on the question admitted that they knew of many Natives farming lands satisfactorily in this district, and that is the whole of the evidence on this subject except for some statements that Natives have leased to pakehas lands which they had under occupation licenses. Now, 1 do not propose to tax your Worships' patience by reviewing the evidence which I propose to call. I just want to say shortly what I think that evidence will show. Now, originally the Natives in this district had at least some reputation for wheat-growing. That was before the troubles with Titokowaru and the other Natives. Then there was the Taranaki war, and if your Worships will refer to the reports of the Bell-Fox Commission you will see that, owing to some extraordinary instances of mismanagement when we were endeavouring to settle our Taranaki difficulties, we were slowly alienating Te Whiti, and that Commission says that Te Whiti had been anxious to help us, had been an influence for good with the Maoris, and that it was due to our own mistakes that Te Whiti was slowly becoming alienated from us. Then after the settlement Te Whiti and Tohu retired to Parihaka, and they were never satisfied to recognize the confiscation. They sat and brooded over the taking of what they said were their lands, and they had a very large following indeed. That was the Parihaka movement, and the Parihaka movement kept the great body of Natives from a real desire to forge ahead until some two or three years ago, when Te Whiti and Tohu died. Until they died Parihaka was crowded with Natives listening to the word of Te Whiti, and the word of Te Whiti was always, " Have nothing to do with the pakeha while the pakeha remains in occupation of your lands." In fact, such was the influence of that teaching that many of the Natives, while Te Whiti and Tohu lived, refused, 1 believe, to accept their rents. There are still some who refuse to accept; but since Te Whiti's and Tohu's death the number has been very greatly reduced. Since Te Whiti's and Tohu's death great changes have taken place amongst the Maoris. They are now for the first time sending their children to school; they are now for the first time voting in large numbers at parliamentary elections. Parihaka is practically "deserted, and there has been formed —and this is to me the most interestingfeature of all —there has been formed a union with a wide membership amongst these Maoris. That union contains amongst its leaders men who have always been leaders of the Maoris, and many men who were of authority under Te Whiti and Tohu. Now, that union is not the outcome of the preaching of Te Whiti; it, is not a union purely or at all for the sake of agitating against the pakeha; it is a union formed not only to protect the Natives' interests with regard to their lands, but also to protect the Native race in this part of New Zealand from decaying. The teachings of that union are sobriety and work, and I understand that I shall have some evidence of the very wide effect which the teaching of that union has had upon the Maoris in this district. There is a general bestii ring of the Maoris here, and generally a genuine effort to forward the Native race. They are looking eagerly to the time when they shall have the chance of competing for their own lands; they are even asking that the freehold of those lands shall be given to them. I think they realize that before the nation abandons the trusteeship which it undertook the nation must be satisfied that the beneficiary is of age, and they think that they are even now in a position to convince their trustee that they are of age. That is not the point we have to deal with, but that is the state of the Maori mind to-day. Now, the evidence which I shall put before you will indicate to you, I think, that if they are again to be subjected to a breach of trust, if they are again to be deprived of the right of competing for their lands, this movement will die, and it will mean the driving-back of the Native into the condition of a mere rent-receiver; and all authorities agree that if anything is to be done with the Native race it must be done by encouragement to work. Now, if the Native, as I have suggested, would be entitled to compete unless the nation could show that something had occurred since 1881—that the state of the Maori was so different now from what it was then that it would be against the Native interests to allow him to compete, how strong is the case if my evidence will show your Worships that not only is the Maori not less able to look after himself now than he was in 1881, but that, in fact, he is more able? Now there are, roughly speaking, 5,000 Natives interested in this land in the West Coast Settlement Reserves. The acreage under the 1881 Act is 18,000, and there are about 50,000 acres more, some of which are under occupation license. That makes a total of 68,000 acre's if these 1881 leases are to be put up for public competition and are to be counted with the lands already reserved —68,000 acres amongst 5,000 Natives. That is an acreage of about 13| acres per Maori. Is that excessive, when the white man has anything from 110 to 550 acres? The maximum the pakeha may have is 640 acres. Now, while lam at this stage I might just deal with the argument which T understand my friend may use, that some of the land under occupation license has been sublet by the Natives to pakehas.'. The reason is obvious: the Maori is without finance, and you have had abundant evidence that without considerable expenditure this land cannot be made profitable. I shall call the evidence of Natives who have had land under occupation license, and who have sublet it to the pakeha with a view to getting the bush off and the fences erected. I shall show you that in some cases, at any rate, the land has been sublet for no rent, on condition that the bush is felled and that it is'fenced. Now, is not that a case of the Native looking ahead? If the Native intended to be purely a rent-receiver, would he stand out of his rent for four, five, or six years, with a view to getting back his farm improved? I

75

76

G.—2,

think it is quite obvious that if the Natives are not to be deprived of the right to compete, their right to compete will be little less than a sham unless they are in a position to finance the payment to the outgoing tenant for his improvements. Now, that raises the question as to what the Government should do in the way of financing the Natives. Your Worships will remember in the report of the Public Trustee in 1909 which 1 read this morning, the Public Trustee then advised'the Government that the Advances to Settlers Department should be authorized to advance to the Maoris in order to enable them to pay for their improvements, and he added that there would be ample security. Xow, the Natives ask that they should be placed in the same position as the pakeha for bidding—that is to say, they should have the same opportunities of backing their bids with finance as the pakeha competitor has, and on the Public Trustee's report there will be ample security, for that. They also ask that the right to go to the Advances to Settlers Department should not only be limited to those Natives who wish to compete for the leases,.but should be extended to those who take up occupation licenses. I have discussed this matter briefly with the Public Trustee, and he put to me this position : Suppose we, by a loan, assist the Native to get in, and suppose then he does not make a success of it, and allows the land to go back, we are impoverishing the Native. Now, the question of loan or no loan differs from the question of right to bid or no right to bid, in this way : that we have guaranteed to the Native his right to bid, but we have not guaranteed to the Native his finance; so that I think the Natives are bound, and they are prepared, to , agree to reasonable safeguards being taken by the lending Departments to prevent the loans actually injuring the Natives. I put it to them that they should authorize me to suggest that the loans should be made, and that after inspection, or at the end of five years, if the making of those loans was proved to be unjustified by the results, the lending Department should be in a position to go back on its bargain. They are so confident that they will be able to show good results that they would authorize me to consent to an arrangement of that sort. Ido not, if your Worships will permit me, propose to follow that question as to finance further at this moment; it is not a question upon which it will be necessary to call evidence. I have indicated something of the nature of what I should propose, because your Worships will want to turn it over in your minds during the rest of the hearing. I think the wisest course will be for me to discuss with the Public Trustee what he thinks would.be reasonable safeguards, and to then put the proposals which he makes before my clients, and then to suggest to you what my clients would wish at the close of my case. That is the whole of what 1 have to say, sir, and I have to apologize again for taxing your patience; but 1 have felt that I am not only addressing you. The evidence right through has raised all sorts of points, and the history which I have given you of our previous dealings with this matter must have convinced you that more than once Parliament has agreed to legislation with its eyes shut—that points have been blurred and matters have been pushed through and the Natives have not been 'heard. Now, I have been trying to deal with every point that has occurred to me would be brought up not only before you, sirs, but in Parliament. I have been endeavouring to find a complete answer for each one of those points, and that explains the extreme length of my address. The Chairman : Ido not think there is any apology due from you at all. The Commissioners are yen* pleased to hear the clear way in which you have placed the matter before us. The matter is an entirely new one to myself, and 1 am glad to hear both sides of the question as far as we have gone. 1 think the Public Trustee is here, and if he would feel inclined to make a statement before the Commission we should be very glad to hear him. Dr. Fitchett (Public Trustee) : I should like to say a word or two. Beyond complimenting Mr. Bell on his clear and logical speech to the Commission, I do not feel called on to refer to it except on one or two points. Mr. Bell instanced a couple of letters which appeared on the file, but if Mr. Bell knew more of the business of the Public Trust Ofh'ce he would not wonder at finding letters of that sort on the file, and still less would he wonder that no reply went from the Public Trustee. The Public Trustee has a very large correspondence—hundreds of letters come every day, while not one in every hundred personally reaches him. The letters are opened by the distributing clerk, who distributes them to the various sub-departments. They are there put on their respective files before being dealt with, and the officers in charge of those departments are too busily engaged in attending to the actual business to think of the ethical points involved in those letters. If the Public Trustee took upon himself in every case to write stinging replies to improper suggestions he would have no time to attend to his proper work. In regard to the first letter to which Mr. BeH referred, my predecessor was concerned. I do not suppose he ever saw it, and if he did lie would, I am sure, do precisely what I did with the second letter — namely, ignore it. Mr. Bell does not suggest it influenced the Department. I can assure him it did not. Every letter which is received by a Department such as ours must go on the file, and it is impossible for the head of it to keep the morals of his correspondents in order. The second point is a more serious one—Mr. Bell's view of the action and attitude of Parliament in connection with these reserves, and I mention it not by way of criticizing him, but in order that the Commission might hear another view r of it, at all events. Mr. Bell postulates that the Act of 1.881 was a contract with the Natives, and that therefore it was not competent for the contracting parties to depart from it without mutual consent, and that Parliament in amending the Act committed what he called a breach of faith. I cannot accept that view at all. The Natives had nothing to do with the Act of 1881 ; no bargain was made by Parliament or the nation with the Natives. The broad view which may reasonably be taken is this : When the troubles arose the Taranaki Natives helped us; the military authorities recognized their help, and no doubt promised to reward them, as every nation does in such circumstances, when peace is restored, and steps are taken to give substantial effect to such promises. That is precisely what the State did in this case. It set apart large areas of land for the benefit of those Natives. It was a gift— not a bargain, the method of administration being a pure matter of detail which Parliament has always controlled by Act from 1881 onwards.

G.—2.

The Chairman: But what I understand Mr. Bell to have said was this: that something was given by this Act of 1881, and afterwards without any consultation Dr. Fitchett: That is the point 1 am leading to. The Act of 1881 is in no sense a bargain, nor does it give the Natives anything; it is merely a prescription as to how the lauds are to be disposed of for the benefit of the Natives and the promotion of settlement, and if those prescriptions were found unworkable or inconvenient there was no breach of faith in altering them. Take the first alteration, when the tenure was extended from twenty-one to thirty years; Mr. Bell said that the reason was that the leases could not be disposed of on the shorter tenure. Mr. Bell: I said that that was doubtless the reason. Dr. Fitchett: That was doubtless the reason. It was uncultivated land —bush and swamp land; its potentialities were unknown. No one in his wildest dreams could have imagined that it would develop into the dairying land of to-day. The twenty-one years' tenure was an experiment that failed; so much clearing had to be done that nobody would take up the land; hence the extended tenure of thirty years. But for it the land might have been lying idle to-day. It is surely unreasonable to call this a breach of faith. It was merely an alteration in the machinery for utilizing the land. So long as the Natives got the proceeds that is all they were concerned with. The keynote is contained in the Act of 1881, and repeated in the Act of 1884 —namely, that the lands are to be administered for the benefit of the Natives and the promotion of settlement. Both points must be borne in mind. The weakness in Mr. Bell's argument, if 1 may be permitted to say so, lies in this : that he confines himself to the first, and ignoj es the second. He regards as a breach of trust every alteration the Legislature has made in the Act of 1881 for the promotion of settlement. It does not lie upon me to defend the Legislature, but I think what I have said explains the position. Mr. Bell rather complained about the Public Trustee treating the tenants leniently in the payment of their rent; he seemed to think that the Public Trustee should sue or eject if the rent was not paid on the nail. No man in his senses does that; he looks at the circumstances, and, if necessary, gives time. That is what the Public Trustee does in the administration of the West Coast Native Settlement Reserves. Mr. Kerr: More than that was done; he actually reduced the rent. Dr. Fitchett: I do not think the Public Trustee can be held responsible for that; it was done by Order in Council. I have no doubt, although I have no absolute knowledge, that it was done owing to depression at the time. It was impossible for the tenants to pay. It must be borne in mind, in the administration of an estate like this, that the Public Trustee cannot confine himself to the immediate rights of the Natives —that is to say, he must conserve the estate, and if in order to squeeze the rent from the lessees when it is due he has to eject them, it means he must find other tenants, and the estate itself may be impoverished whilst the land is lying idle. The Chairman: We cannot get rid of this idea —at least it has taken hold of me —that all these alterations have been for the benefit of the lessee. Dr. Fitchett: No doubt. The Chairman: And if we read through the lessees' history we find them making enormous profits over and above the rents they have been paying. We find one man getting £1 14s. an acre for what he was paying 25... an acre —making a profit of £352 a year. Dr. Fitchett: There is no doubt about that. The Chairman : But it has only been looked at from the one side. The lessees have been able to get what they wanted, and there is no doubt there must have been some agitation to get it. Dr. Fitchett: There is no doubt about that. The Chairman: And the Natives were not consulted about it. Dr. Fitchett: Possibly not. But they were not concerned so long as the rents were not diverted from them. The point I desire to impress upon the Commission is that it was not necessarily a breach of faith on the part of Parliament to modify the tenure or terms of the leases merely because the modification was not to the direct advantage of the Natives as receivers of the rent. Parliament was well entitled to consider the promotion of settlement. The Chairman: Parliament may do whatever it likes in one sense, but that does not absolve it from probably being immoral in the way in which they do it. You may say it is administration, but it is administration that kills it. Dr. Fitchett: The whole question is whether it is a righteous thing to do, having regard to the interests of the Natives and the 'promotion of settlement. Parliament is the judge of that. The Chairman: You also seem to think that the promotion of settlement is only on the part of the pakeha. Why not promote the settlement of the Maori? Dr. Fitchett: I am coming to that, and it is an important point. I agree with Mr. Bell that the only effective way of saving the Maori from extinction is by settling him on the land. Mr. Bell would settle them on these reserves by displacing the pakeha in the case of the unconverted leases. Is this practicable? All the facts must be looked clearly in the face. The question is whether the Native can get on this land, and if so can he work it profitably. He can only get on it in the beaten way of purchase —by outbidding the European. The present lessee has a right by contract that no Parliament could for a moment think of breaking. The abstract right to bid is futile unless the means to bid effectually are given. The only Natives who can outbid the pakeha in any specific lease are those who are entitled to the rent of that lease, for with them the rent will be merely a cross-entry. The number is very smalL In every other case the Native must have the money to pay the rent he bids. Moreover, in every case the outgoing lessee must be paid £5 an aci-e for his improvements. I think it is common ground that there is no lease under which at least the improvements do not to-day reach £5. And that is not all; they must also have funds to work the land, to provide plant, herds, and so forth. Last, but not least, they must have the industry, energy, and skill to maintain the land in its present high state of cultivation. Failing this,' disaster must follow. Unless some effective financial

77

u.— ±

scheme is devised I see nothing to be gained by denying to the lessees the right to convert. Taking the two tenures one with the other, I think there is no question but that settlement is best promoted by the second —the converted lease. The disadvantages of the old system are many. At least two years before the end of his lease the lessee gets unsettled as to whether he will get a renewal. - He does not carry on his work with energy, because he may never receive the benefit o"f it; the edge of husbandry is dulled. Then there is the risk of having to pay an excessive rent. It is not good for the country that tenants should be rack-rented —a rack-rented property is a property on the way to wreck. A fair rent only is what should be expected. In these cases a fair rent is fixed as the minimum at which competition begins, and the competition may be malicious or reckless. In Dunedin, where a similar tenure exists, I have known cases where, to gratify a grudge, a man goes and bids against the tenant solely in order to raise the rent on him. The reckless competitor is more dangerous still; lie bids any rent to get the land, and gets it. He has perhaps enough money to go into possession and pay the rent for a while, but he had not enough money to work the land or keep up the rent. The result is disastrous to everybody —the old tenant is ousted, the new one is ruined, and the land goes back. Under the second tenure the tenant is encouraged to put all his energy into the place, for he is assured of a perpetual renewal at a fair rent. This is better for the country, better for the district, better for the tenant, better for the land, and better in this case - for the Maori except in so far as his immediate rent is concerned. He may get a higher rent by virtue of the competition of which 1 spoke, but then he runs the risk of having the property depreciated, and in case of ejection he gets no rent at all. The Chairman: Yes, but all the time the outcome will be this: that at the present time you do not give the Native owners any chance at all. Dr. Fitchett: If Mr. Bell can devise a scheme by which Natives who are competent to properly work the land can acquire it, it will be a very good thing, and I do not think the present tenants will have any right to complain because their contract is not affected; but if the Commission is satisfied that the Natives cannot, then I see no objection from the point of view of the Natives themselves. The Chairman: If they do not get some financial support the same as the lessees are getting, then you are virtually tying their legs, and telling them to run Dr. Fitchett: Their legs are tied by racial and financial disadvantages, and that is why I am very anxious to learn what practical scheme Mr. Bell can propound. If that can be done I shall be glad to support it, but otherwise, in my view, nothing is to be gained. The Chairman: I think some scheme ought to be devised whereby the Natives could get some assistance, the same as the pakeha. Surely it is not beyond the range of ordinary probability. Dr. Fitchett: That is essential from my point of view. There is one very unfortunate element which has entered into these proceedings, or, rather, that arose before the proceedings started, and that is that the Natives have got obsessed with the idea that these proceedings are to give them back their lands. Mr. Bell: No. Dr. Fitchett: I speak subject to correction so far as Mr. Bell is concerned, but I know from what the Natives represented to me that in very many cases that is so. Mr. Bell: That is not so now. There were a few of them who thought that may be so, but I was at pains to put that matter right. They are anxious to get the freehold. Dr. Fitchett: Well, if that were so they would be terribly disappointed when they under stand what the real position is, and I am glad Mr. Bell has cleared their, minds on that point. Dr. Fitchett: Well, if that were so they would be terribly disappointed when they iinderlicenses? Dr. Fitchett: There are about 30,000 acres held under occupation licenses, which, as you know are tenancies at will. There are over 20,000 acres held as papakaingas, or commonages. They are occupied without any colour of right, or title, or license, at all. All this large area is available for the Natives by permanent lease. I am sorry to say that hitherto they have made little use of it. The total area of the unconverted leases is about 18,000 acres. There are about one hundred and thirty leases falling in at various dates, and it is only as they fall in that the Maoris can have the opportunity to bid for the land. The total area of the reserves is about 200,000 acres. It will thus be seen that only 18,000 acres —less than 5 per cent, of the leased l an( j i s unconverted, and that over 40.000 acres (more than 10 per cent, of the total) is at present available for occupation by the Maoris. That is the position. The Commission adjourned till 10.30 a.m. next day.

Hawera, Saturday, 25th Mat, 1912. Mr Bell: Just before calling evidence 1 want to correct a statement which I made in my openin" , yesterday. Your Worships will remember that I said there was a letter on the file from Mr Fisher saving that despite a lawyer's opinion on a certain point he considered that a certain course should be taken in regard to an application by Mrs. McGuire, and stating that "Mrs McGuire is the wife of the member for Hawera." I was wrong in saying that the letter was vvritten by Mr. Fisher. It is a'memo, on the file by a clerk in the Public Trust Office at Wellington The point I made is the same, only I have to apologize for having said it was Mr. Fisher who wrote it. The point T made is that it should not have been necessary on a trust file to call attention to the fact of an application to be dealt with having a political aspect.

78

G.—2.

79

K. P. TAMATI-O-BAUKAWA.J

Kahu Pukobo Tamati-o-Raukawa sworn and examined. (No. 27.) (C. W. P. Scon, sworn as Interpreter.) 1. Mr. Bell.] Do you know anything about a union which has been formed amongst the Maoris? —Yes. 2. What position do you hold in that union? —I was appointed president of that union. 3. Did you at one time live at Parihaka? —Yes. 4. Were you in a position of authority there? —Yes. 5. When did you cease to live at Parihaka? —In 1908. 6. Have you any land? —Yes. 7. Where is it?— Near Okiawa. 8. Is it leased?—lt is under the 1881 and 1892 Acts. 9. Is any of it in your possession?—A small portion, 40 acres. 10. Is the 40 acres held under occupation, license? —Yes. 11. How much rent do you pay for the 40 acres? —I was demanded by the Public Trust Agent to pay £5. 12. Mr. Zachariah: The witness has an occupation license for 80 acres, for which he pays £40 a year. 13. Mr. Bell.] Are you sure it is only 40 acres for which you have an occupation license? — Yes. 14. Are there any relatives living with you? —Yes. 15. Have you ever leased the 40 acres to a pakeha?—Yes, I did at one time. 16. Why did you lease to a pakeha?—Because I had not sufficient money. 17. For how long did you agree to lease it? —Of course, the Maori is ignorant, and he would not record the years that the term is for. I think it was about when the land was subdivided in 1908. 18. When did you get your land back?— The year before last. 19. Did you have to pay anything to the pakeha in order to get your land back? —Yes. 20. What have you done with this land? —I ploughed it and put turnips in it. 21. How did you get the money to sow the turnips?—By the brains of my children. 22. What did your children do?— Ploughing. 23. What did your children do in order to get the money?— They made hay for the Europeans, and they ploughed. They were working for the pakeha. 24. What did you do with the money you got for the turnips?— Part of the money was to pay back to the European what we had borrowed —that is, from the person whom we had leased it. 25. And what did you do with the rest of the money?— The balance was to purchase stock and cattle for my children. 26. Have you sold the turnips yet? —Yes, they are being eaten by the European's cattle. 27. Who was the pakeha to whom you leased ? —Patterson. 28. Does he hold any other land? —Yes. 29. Is Patterson a lessee of other land under the 1881 Act? —Yes. 30. Now, before Te Whiti and Tohu died, would there be many Natives who would . have been prepared to start and work as you have done?— When Te Whiti and Tohu died I started to work. 31. Are there many more like you who, since the death of Te Whiti and Tohu, are now turning round looking for work? —All of us, from Waitotara to Paraninihi. 32. Are there any Maoris in your locality who are anxious to work, but have no land?— Yes. 33. For what purpose was the union formed? —So that no one should go for anything outside what we combined for. From our parents and elders we had the idea of getting our lands back, and that we should make the application as one, and have the one idea in applying for our lands. 34. Are there any Maoris in your district who are working their land successfully?— Yes. 35. Did Te Whiti and Tohu encourage farming?— Their advice to us was not this modern farming, but the farming that would produce potatoes and sufficient grass for, say, one horse. 36. Since Te Whiti and Tohu died lias the method of farming altered?— Yes, when they died then we turned round and discovered what was the proper method of farming. 37. Do you remember going down to Wellington in 1909?— Yes. 38. Whom did you see?— Sir James Carroll. 39. Did any one go with you?— All the people representing the Maoris from Waitotara to Paraninihi accompanied me —we were all representatives. 40. Did you say to Sir James Carroll? —Yes. 41. What did you say?—l said " Timi, I have come to have the tears of my elders and myself wiped away that have beea caused by the Act of 1881." 42. What did Timi say?— There was a man in Court here yesterday (Dr. Fitchett) who spoke. He was with Mr. Carroll, Hie Public Trustee was with Mr. Carroll when he said " Yes, your tears shall be dried : the tears which were caused by the Act of 1881 shall be wiped dry by us." Dr. Fitchett was there and the header of the Opposition was there. 43. You told me about the pakeha having milked your cow dry : will you repeat to the Commission what you said to me? —The cow that 1 had was young when it was taken by another person. Having taken the fat from that cow, leaving nothing but the bones and skin in my paddock, I now wish to build it up again—to revive the flesh and blood. It is a simile I am giving as to the land—the lands have been reduced in value. I say that simile applies to the land, because the milk has now been taken from it, and the value of that cow is reduced. That is why I say the valuation should be reduced to under £5, to £4, or something like that.

[K. P. TAMATI-O-ItAUKAWA.

G.—2.

80

44. Gross-examined by Mr. Welsh.'] I understand you to say that the pakeha has reduced your land in value? —The fat has been taken out of it. 45. And therefore the European should not be paid £5, but a lesser sum? —Say, £4 or less. 46. That is your opinion?— Yes. 47. Is that the opinion of the union? —Yes, because we think the land has been impoverished. 48. And the opinion of the union is that the pakeha should not be paid £5, but somethingless? —No; that is my opinion. 49. What is the opinion of the union? —That was my opinion, indorsed by them. 50. In what lands under the Act of 1881 are you a beneficiary? —Okiawa and Matarangi. I never dreamt you would put these questions. Those are the whole of the lands I have mentioned, but I am representing the whole of the lands from Waitotara to Paraninihi. 51. I understand you are the head man in the union, and the union represents the people. I desire to speak to you now in your individual capacity as a beneficiary. I understand you to say that you are a beneficiary under two grants : is that so?— Yes, and I gained one of those by succession to a deceased person. 52. What is the total area that you are entitled to as a beneficiary under these grants?—l am not able to say. 53. What is the total area in the Okiawa grant?—l only know of the 40 acres I have told you of. I cannot say the area. Mr. Zachariah: There are 3,582 acres in the grant, and there are 134 Natives interested. 54. Mr. Welsh.] Are you interested in any other land? —By succession T may have other interests, but I do not know where they are. 55. In the Ngatimauihaki grant there are 3,582 acres and 134 beneficiaries? —Whatever Mr. Zaohariah says is correct; he has the books. 56. What you -ask for, I understand, is that you should be placed in the same position as the pakeha to bid at the auction when the leases fall in? —I make the application, and ask for the land to be returned to üb. 57. What do you mean by the land to be returned to you? —I would say the 82,000 acres — the whole of the area. Under the Act of 1881 there were 18,399 acres, and I am claiming what Mr. Carroll promised us. 58. You ask that that land should be returned to the Maoris?— Yes, so that there should not be one acre lost to us. 59. How do you ask that that land should be returned? Do yoti ask that it should be given back to you to own as freeholders, or that it should be held by you under the Public Trustee as leaseholders? —So that the moneys should be open to the Maoris. 60. I understand you to say that you want the land back, and that the lending Departments should also be open to you the same as they are to the Europeans?— Yes. 61. You will remember that at present these Europeans hold the lands from the Public Trustee?— Yes. 62. Do you ask that the Maori should also hold the land from the Public Trustee, or do you ask that the Maori should hold the land without the Public Trustee? —I am not opposing the Public Trustee, but I am asking that we shall have an avenue b}' which we shall be able to get on to our lands. 63. Do you propose that the Maori should hold the land as a lessee from the Public Trustee and pay the Public Trustee rent?— Where is this trustee and the money I am asking for? The money is in the Public Trustee's hands that I am referring to, and the Public Trustee is leaning towards the Government. We want the leases to be returned to us absolutely—our lands to be given back to us. 64. Then, you do not want the Public Trustee to hold the lands at all? —No. 65. And I presume that then the Maoris will deal with the lands as they think fit? —Yes, to work them. 66. And you will divide the whole of the lands now under the Act of 1881 amongst yourselves in such manner as you think fit?— Yes; we would allocate them and receive the money we are now demanding 67. Receive what money you are now demanding?—l would not say what the particular value was, because it would be a question of value and location. 68. Whom are you demanding these moneys from? —The Government, I suppose —the money for the improvements on the land. 69. Are you referring to the money which you are asking that the Government should lend you on loan?— What we want is an advance to us in the same way as the Europeans can have it. I claim that the money should be advanced to us, because that is how the European has been able to work the land, and I claim the same right, so that we will be able to work our lands. 70. Now, when you get these lands back which you hope to do, how will you subdivide them? —Do not ask us to tell you that We will dispose of them between ourselves. We may elect to have them in big portions or small portions, just as our families decide 71. Then, I understand from you that if you get the land back you will then subdivide it in such manner as the whole body of people think best?— Yes. 72. And then you will borrow from the Government the amount of money that you may require to farm those lands?— Yes. 73. And I suppose the chiefs of the people will make that decision as to how the lands are to be subdivided?—Do you ask me that we, the chiefs, shall subdivide the land ? 74. No, Ido not ask you that —I ask you who you propose shall divide the lands when you get them?—We will. 75. Do you mean the people will divide the lands or the chiefs of the people?— All of us. There are no chiefs; we are nil one. The committee will do it,

G.—2.

K. P. TAMATI-O-RAUKAWA,

76: Now, I suppose that the Maori nature is much the same as the European nature to this extent : that there are some.good hard workers amongst them, and I suppose there are some who are not hard workers but who are lazy people? —It depends upon the privilege we have to go and work the land before we can say who is the worker and who is the lazy one. Of course, we are all energetic now, and all milking cows. 77. But there are, I suppose, amongst you some lazy people who will not work? —The old people with bent backs may refuse to work. All those young people you see in the Court are hard workers. 78. And all fit to work the land as farmers? —Yes. They have had two or three years' education since out advent out of Parihaka. 79. I am pleased to hear you have advanced so much since the Parihaka days?—We are all working. 80. And this land would be divided, then, amongst these people equally?—lt would be for the whole of the people to divide the land between them. 81. But would not each person be entitled to the same amount of land? — Ihat would be by. the decision of the people. 82. I hope you will not-leave any of those industrious workers out and give them no land? — If there is not sufficient land for them to go round, then they will simply put their hand out and ask for more. 83. Who from ?—From you —the people who hold the land. 84. Where are those lands?— Between Waitotara and Paraninihi. 85. Are you speaking of the lands under the Act of 1892 that you would take?—l just say from Waitotara to Paraninihi. 86. Are you aware that there is a great number of Europeans holding Maori lands under the Act of 1892? —I do not recognize them at all; all I look at is the Act of 1881 and the Act of 1892. 87. And you know the Acts of 1881 and 1892?— Yes. The Act of .1892 has gone. The Public Trustee has told me that there was a twenty-one-years lease in that case. 88. Then, you do not ask that any lands held by the European under the Act of 1892 should be handed back to the Maori ? —Let it be understood at once that that is what I am asking. I am claiming the 18,399 acres under the Act of 1881. Sir James Carroll and the Public Trustee said there were 18,399 acres. 89. And the next day what are you going to claim?—No one can say what will occur to-morrow. 90. If you get these 18,000 acres as you have told us, and that is not enough, what then will be your claims?— That will be for the Government to say whether we have been properly supplied with land, and they should supply us with more if that is insufficient for us. 91. You know Parihaka well, do you not?— Yes. You have been questioning me about that all the time —that is where Ido belong to. I first occupied land in 1870. 92. There is a very large reserve at Parihaka, is there not? —Yes. The Commission adjourned until 11 a.m. on Monday, the 27th May, 1912.

Hawbda, Monday, 27th Mat, 1912. Kahu Pukoeo Tamati-o-Raukawa further examined. 93. Mr. Kerr.\ You made some reference in your evidence to having taken no interest in land-settlement up to the time of Te Whiti's and Tohu's death: can you say when it was that Te Whiti and Tohu died?—Te Whiti died six years ago, and Tohu seven years ago. Tupatba Haumatao sworn and examined. (No. 28.) 1. Mr. Bell.) Have you any land? —Yes, at Manutahi. The block is Taumaha. 2. Have you any other land?—; Yes, at Ilapotiki I have an interest by succession. 3. What do you do with your land at Manutahi? Do you farm it? —At first I leased it to a European. 4. For how long did you lease it?— For ten years. 5. What was the rent the first year?—£2o. 6. And how many acres?—74J acres. There were three owners in the 74£ acres. 7. What was the'rent the second year?—£2s. 8. In what condition was the land when you leased it?—lt was growing in gorse. 9. Was there any fencing on the land? —I did fence it originally. 10. What was the rent the third year?—£2s. 11. And the fourth year?— The same. After the first year I limited the rent so as to allow the European to improve the land. 12. What was the rent in the fifth year?— r The land was then improved and the rent/Avas higher—£4o. . . '. ' ' ' 13. Was the gorse all off then? —Yes. 14. After it was cleared, why did you continue to lease it? —The only reason I continued to lease it was because I had no 'money to buy stock with. ' 15. Where were you jiving while the land Was leased? —Sometimes at Parihaka, and sometimes I would return and live on this leased land." ■■.. :. 16. Are you in possession of the land'yourself now?— Yes, Tarn milking cows upon it.. •■•••:

11- G. 2.

81

G.—2.

82

It. haumatao.

17. How many cows are you milking? —Twenty-fivt 18. What used the pakeha to do with the land ?—Hβ cleared the land, improved it, and put sheep upon it. 19. Now, in your locality are there many Maoris who are prepared to work as you are doing 1 -Yes. 20. You say there are three owners in these 74 acres? —Yes. 21. Are the other two owners both men? —No, one is a woman. 22. Do they live on the land also?— Yes. 23. And who does the milking?- —I and my brother and two children. 24. Do you own any land which is leased under the Act of 1892? —Yes. 25. Do you own any land besides that? —Yes. 26. How many acres? —The same three owners own 127 acres. 27. What is the condition of that land?—l have leased it to the Public Trustee for seven years, and the return I will get will be that the Public Trustee will clear the land, sow it wi.th grass, and fence it. He is not paying us one penny rent. 28. Is the land under bush? —Yes. 29. Why did you not cut down the bush yourself?— Because I have not sufficient money. 30. If you could borrow the money would you have cleared it yourself?— Yes. 31. Is there sufficient land available in your locality for the Natives who are anxious to work? —No, there is not very much land, but I wish to work what there is. 32. Do you know of any Maoris in your locality who are anxious to work but have no land? —Yes. 33. Can you give us an instance?— There are seven owners in one block, which contains only 30 acres, and those seven people wish to do work on the land, but there is not sufficient land for them. 34. Has there been any change in the Maoris since Te Whiti and Tolm died? —Yes. 35. What is that change? —Since the death of Te Whiti and Tohu there has been a desire on the part of the Maoris to progress and work our lands. .' . 3/6. On the 74 acres which you have told us about, are there any noxious weeds?— The young gorse grows up, but it is being kept down. 37. Have you ever been to Wellington in connection with the 1881 leases? —Yes. 38. Whom did you see? —Sir James Carroll, the Public Trustee, and the Leader of "the Opposition. 39. What was said? —When we reached Wellington Kahu Pukoro said to those three persons that he had come to Wellington for the purpose of having the tears wiped from his eyes. Sir James Carroll replied, " You have a fortunate opportunity now, and you will have the 18,000 acres returned to you." 40. Cross-examined by Mr. Welsh.] You are a chief? —Yes. 41. And a member of the union? —Yes. 42. When Kahu Pukoro spoke he was the leader and head man of that deputation?— Yes. 43. The land at Hapotiki is not land in Taranaki, is it? —Yes, at Hawera. 44. What acreage is there there, do you know? —Do you mean the total area of the block? 45. No, your interest?—B acres. 46. There is a number of grantees and a large area, is that so? —Yes. As I said, I obtained my interest by succession to a deceased person. 47. I want to refer for a moment to this Manutahi land that is at Taumaha?—Yes. 48. That land is held by you under occupation license from the Public Trustee, it is not?— Yes. 49. How many of them are there who hold the land under occupation license? —There are only three in this particular license lam speaking of. There are other licenses, of course, outside of this. 50. I am speaking of the 74 acres—there are three in that? —Yes, Tuapatea, Turehu, and myself. 51. Do the three of you dairy on this land now?—No, only the two men. 52. And what does the female do? —She is a woman, and does not work. There are two children also for the actual milking. - : 53. Who is the woman? —Turerm, the wife of Poi. 54. She does not live there? —Yes, she is living with her husband at Whanukura. 55. Do you pay her anything for the share of her land which you use?—l endeavoured to pay her something this last year, but she refused it. 56. Then, it is with her authority and leave that you milk on this land, and you are prepared to pay her but she has refused it ?—Yes. 57. How long have you been milking on this land?— One year. 58. And you held land for ten years before that and did not use it?— That is so. When I say that we did not use it, of course, we had crops and potatoes from it. -•■.. :59. When did you begin to milk?—ln August last. 60. What interests have you got under the Act of 1.881? —Do you mean the rights we had by the individualization of the lands under that Act? 61. No, there is a large area of land leased by the Public Trustee to Europeans under the Act of 1892 that Mr. Bell referred to?— Yes. ■ .62. It is not those lands I refer to —they are gone?— Yes. 63. It is the other lands under the old leases that I refer to?— Yes. ••■ 64. Have you any interests in those lands under the old leases?—No, I have no interest in the 18,000 acres, but I am one of the union between Waitotara and Pairanimhi which is txm* rlutfting bhis matter for the purpose at getting back the 18,000 awres.

T. HAUftfATAO.j

Q ; -~2.

65. Is it for the purpose of procuring this 18,000 acres?— The union is combined, for the purpose of remedying the injury that we are suffering.--66. And was it in respect of the 18,000 acres that you went to Wellington to see Sir James Carroll ?—What ■we went to Sir James Carroll for was to ask for some land, and it was he who 'said that it would be the 18,000 acres that would be returned to us. 67. And would that satisfy you if you got the 18,000 acres returned? —Well, if we find that it is sufficient for us, well and good, but we do not think it is likely to be sufficient among the great number of Natives there are. 68. If the Natives get all the lands there are available outside of those under the Act of 1892, that will give each one 13J acres: do you agree with that statement? —Do you think acres is sufficient for a man? 69. You ask for those 18,000 acres?— Yes. 70. Do you ask to lease it from the Public Trustee?—We ask for the return.of the 18,000 acres under the Act which makes the tenure twenty-one years, and then the land reverts to the Natives. 71. Do I understand that the Maoris ask to hold that land without any intervention of the Public Trustee? —What we ask is that the land should be returned to vs —that is, shall be individualized amongst us, and that we shall receive proper titles, just the same as the European has. '- 72. You agree with the chief our your union, Kahu Pukoro, in wanting the land back individualized in order to deal with it exactly the same as the Europeans?— Yes. ■-'-- 73. If you got the return of the 18,000 acres to be so individualized, who will determine the area that each Native is to hold? —If this land is returned to us we will rely upon our lawyer to assist the union to come to a conclusion. Our lawyer will advise the union, and we will assist him. He could get the services of some one to make the allocation. 74. So that the union, with the assistance of this lawyer and other assistance if necessary, would allocate and individualize the area to be held by each Native? —I have said that we will get the assistance of our solicitor, and the union, with his advice and suggestions, would have the land allocated. 75. Now, when do you propose doing this —after the European lease runs out or before?— How could we do it when it is not in our possession ? When we got possession of it it will be done. When the Maoris have it returned to them and it is in their possession, then they will proceed to do what I have said 76. Are you aware that the European, when his lease runs out, will be entitled to be paid for his improvements up to £5 per acre? —In my opinion, the lessees have already received full compensation from the fat of the land. 77. Now, I understand a great deal of the land that is yet left for the Natives is in bush — land outside the 18,000 acres? —Do you mean lands that the Natives are occupying? 78. No, the lands that they are not occupying but which they have a right to occupy?— Some of it is bush. 79. In your scheme do you propose that the Europeans should cut the bush down for the Maoris, or that the Maoris should cut the bush down themselves? —If the land is returned to us it will open up an avenue, so that with our titles we could procure money in order to do the work ourselves, and the Maoris would do it. 80. If these 18,000 acres are returned to the Maoris, they purpose felling the bush upon the bush lands? —Yes. 81. If you are not successful in getting back the 18,000 acres, how do you propose getting the bush felled upon the bush lands? —We are asking that the restrictions shall be removed, and we shall get the titles, so that we can do this work. 82. What do you mean by " that the restrictions shall be removed "1 —Do you not know that we are now in the hands of the Public Trustee —our lands and our bodies are tied and bound to him. .83. And what do you wish in removing those restrictions?-—I say that if the restrictions were removed we shall be placed upon the same footing as the Europeans. 84. In holding the lands? —Yes. 85. Without any Public Trustee? —Well, perhaps you are more intelligent than I am, but 1 have said that when we get the titles we would have possession of the land. Before we get the titles we are still in the hands of the Public Trustee, and until we get the titles we cannot tell the Public Trustee to shift at all. When we get possession, then the Public Trustee will have no right. 86. I want you to assume that the law will not give back to the Maori the 18,000 acres. In such a case, how do you propose dealing with the bush lands and getting the bush down? —You are sticking to this question, and I have replied to it several times. 87. Tell me once again? —I cannot reply to that question. You are telling us that you are not going to give us an avenue to get any money. 88. Mr. Kerr.~\ Do you know why it was that these lands were vested in the Public Trustee w hy these reserves were set apart?—l do not know why. The reserves that were returned to us were placed in the hands of the Public Trustee. Poitutu Warihi Remene sworn and examined. (No. 29.) 1. Mr. Bell.] Have you any land ? —Yes. 2. Is it in jour own possession? —Yes. 3. Whereabouts? —At Ngatitu, Hikurangi Block, 26 acres. .. 4/Is that under occupation license? —Yes. 5. What is the condition of those 26 acres? —It is still in bush. 6. How long have you had it?— Five years 7. Have you got any other land? —Yes.

83

;p. W. REMENE.

Q.— 2.

8. Is the other land freehold? —Yes, freehold. 9. How many owners are there? —Three. 10. Did you buy that land?— Yes. ■11. How did you get the money to buy it?—We had a quarter of an acre of land in Wellington, and we sold it. 12. What did you get for it?—£4,ooo. 13. How many owners were there in that? —Four owners. 14. And some of you invested your share in this land that you bought? —Yes, two of us. is! What did the land cost?—£2,ooo. 16. Was there a mortgage besides? —Yes, of £1,000. 17. What is the area?—l94 acres. 18. Is it far from the 26 acres? —A mile away. 19. What are you doing with the 194 acres I—lt has been used for dairying. 20. How many cows have you? —Forty-eight cows. 21. What is the quality of the land? —Good laud. 22. Who does the milking ?— Myself and two young members of my family. 23. Does the other owner do any work on the land? —He is dead. 24. Are there any noxious weeds on this land? —The Europeans introduced a lot of noxious weeds 25. Are you doing anything to get rid of those noxious weeds? —We have to in order to protect the grass, or else it will run to fern. 26. Why have you not felled the bush oft' the 26 acres?—lt is not suitable for clearing. We want to make use of the bush for fencing purposes. 27. Where are you going to put the fencing-posts? —On the 194 acres. 28. When you have finished improving the 194 acres will you fell the bush on the 26 acres?— We would like to keep that for firewood as well. 29. When did you sell the quarter-acre section in Wellington?—ln 1908. 30. Was it just after the sale that you bought the 194 acres? —Yes. 31. Was that after Te Whiti and Tohu were dead? —Yes, they died in 1907. 32. What were you doing before Te Whiti and Tohu died? —I was the man who was looked upon as the baker for Tohu. 33. Were you paid anything for the work you did for Te Whiti and Tohu?—No. 34. Why did you do it?—l was well rewarded by the people coining to Parihaka from other places and being satisfied with their stomachs being filled. 35. Do you mean you were given financial reward or that you were rewarded in seeing them come?— That is the best reward one can have for them to come and see us, because that is love. 36. So long as Te Whiti. and Tohu were alive, would you have gone out farming?—lt was only on their death that I could go out, and it was then that I could purchase flour, tea, and sugar for myself. 37. Are there any Maoris in your locality who are anxious to work but have not got any land?— Yes, a large number. 38. Has there been any change in the Maoris since Te Whiti and Tohu died?— Yes, they are very hungry for land to work on. . PouwHAREUMU Toi sworn and examined. (No. 30.) 1. Mr, Bell.] Have you any land?— Yes. 2. Whereabouts is it?—At Inuawai. I own 16 acres in my own right, but my people jointly occupy a greater portion. 3. As to the 16 acres, what did j - ou do with that? —I leased it to Sam Henderson. 4. Why did you lease it to the pakeha?—Because I had no money. :. 5. What did you want the money for? —To erect the fences and to procure the grass-seed. 6. Was it in bush at the time?—No, it was gorse land. 7. Would you have improved this land if you had had the money to do so?— Yes. '. 8. Has the pakeha improved it? —-Yes. 9. Have you got the land back from the pakeha? —My individual interest is 16 acres, but it is joined with the others of my family. 10. Was it all leased to the pakeha?—One portion of it is returned, but Henderson still retains one portion. 11. Is your 16 acres individualized? —No, it is not absolutely cut off. ... 12.. What is being done with the land which the pakeha has given back? —It has been sown in grass, and there are now three stacks of hay. 13. What are you going to do with the hay? —I will sell it to the European, but I will keep one to feed my cows if I procure any. ■-.-' 14. And what will you do with the money from the two stacks that you sell? —Buy stock :.with it. 15. Have you got any children? —Yes, one son, twenty-three years old. 16. What does he do? —He works on the land he possesses—the land of his mother, who is now dead. 17. Does your son do any other work besides working on his mother's land? —He does other work for the Europeans. 18. How big is his mother's land?—l am not able to say. 19. What was the mother's name? —Kawhe. She is in Ngatihaua Block, and the other is the Ngatimanuhakai Block. . 20. Did you ever have anything to do with Te Whiti and Tohu?—Yes. 21. Did you follow their teaching?— Yes.

84

p. TOl.;

G.—2

22. Did you do any work while they were alive?- Yes, we cultivated potatoes, kumeras, taro, and wheat. 23. Where was that? —At Parihaka. 24. I think some of your land is leased by the Public Trustee under the 1892 Act? —Yes. 25. How much rent do you get? —Sometimes £1 in six months and sometimes 10s. and £-2.--26. Now, has there been any change in the Maori since Te Whiti and Tohu died?— Yes. 27. What is that change?—My view of it is that they have all turned their minds to work the land. VV'liile Te Whiti and Tohu were alive all the Maoris embraced their teachings. 28. I think you are secretary of the union? —Yes. 29. What are the objects of the union? —1 know the whole history of it from the time of its inception. On the death of Te Whiti and Tohu we formed this combination for the purpose of being of one mind to prosecute and work our lands, and also to have the lands returned to our own hands from the Public Trustee —that is, that the lands should be returned to us on the expiry of the term for which they were leased. We were told by Messrs. Bell and Fox that we had a grant from the Queen, and that the land should be ours, and would be returned to us. 30. Are most of the other Maoris as enthusiastic as you are about the union? —Yes, I am only one; we are all of the same mind. 31. Gross-examined by Mr. Welsh.] What is the total area of lands held by your family?— 81 acres or more. 32. How long have they been held by your family?— This is the fourth year. .33. Prior to that who held those lands? —They were held by the will of the people. 34. How many are there in your family?— Six. 35. Of the 81 acres, how many are now held by the Maoris and how many by the European?— The whole of it is retained by us. 36. Is not the European occupying some of it at present?—l have said that I did lease it. 37. Does the European still retain some? —Yes. As an approximate estimate, I should say he has 38 acres. .. . 38. And there are 43 acres held by the Maoris? —Yes. 39. How long have you and your people been in occupation of those 43 acres?— One year — from April, 1910. 40. Have you any stock upon it?— Yes, I have three horses of my own, and there are some cows on it belonging to some other Maoris. 41. Not your family?—No, not the family, other Maoris. 42. What stock have you of your family's on the land? —Well, we are scattered. Some of us are distant further down. 43. What stock have you of your own or your family's on the land in addition to the three horses? —Not any. 44. You took your first crop of hay off the land last summer, I suppose?— Yes. 45. And what is the land used for now?— There are some cows running on it owned by some other Maoris, and also by a pakeha named Solway. 46. How many are there of Solway's?—l do not know exactly, but, say, fifty of Solway's own cattle. * 47. And how many belonging to the Maoris?— About eighteen. 48. And I suppose Solway pays you rent for grazing the stock? —Yes. 49. Do the other Maoris also pay for grazing the stock? —No. 50. Mr. Bell.] When did you take the hay off the land?—ln February of this year. 51. Is it since then that the stock has been put on?— Yes. 52. Why did you not put on stock yourself ?—Well, I allowed his cattle to be put on because Solway is going to supply me with milking-cows this coming year. 53. Mr. Kerr.} You say you followed Te Whiti's teaching?— Yes. 54. What was his teaching in regard to the land?— All he told us was to cultivate food 00. But since his death you say you have altered your policy, and that the Natives hare turned their minds to working the land?— Yes, in the way of milking. 56 But only in the way of milking?— Well, we are going in more extensively for farming and milking cows. ■ ■ e> 57. It is five years since Te Whiti died? —Yes. 58. Have the Natives done anything to work the lands round about Parihaka since his death? —Yes. 59. Could you say how many have taken up lands at Parihaka ?—No. I could not say 60. Can you say how much land they have taken up?—No, I cannot say. 61. These lands are not in the hands of the Public Trustee, are they?— Some of them are 62. And some are still in the hands of the Natives?— Yes. u 63 lu W xT h '• egarC ? t0 lat }4 s . vested in the Publ, '° Trustee, have any of those lands been taken up by the Natives since Te Whiti's death?— You mean the lands that have been returned to the Maoris? 64. No; you said certain lands at Parihaka are vested in the Public Trustee?—No, the lands that are vested in the Public Trustee have no Maoris on. 65. Are the lands at Parihaka occupied by any one else?—l am not able to say 66. Have you taken the trouble to inquire from the Public Trustee what lands are available for settlement by the Maori at Parihaka?—No. _ 67 How is that, if you are wanting lands to work?— Well, what we have been thinking of is the 18.000 acres. 6 68. Lands that are already improved ?—Those are the lands that we understood were :to revert to us when the leases expired.

85

G.-^-2

[fc TOl.

69. Do you know that many of those lands were bush lands when they were taken up by the lessees ? —Yes. 70. Do you know that from 1892 forward the Queen allowed any of her subjects, whether pakeha or Maori, to take up Crown lands on perpetual lease at 4 per cent, on the unimproved value? —No, I did not know that. 71. And that the West Coast Settlement Act, 1892, only applied that principle to these Native reserves, with this difference: that lands taken from the Crown were leased for all time at the same rent, whereas in the case of reserves the lands had to be revalued in the Maori interest every twenty-one years?—No, I did not know that. 72. Mr. Bell.] Is it not a fact that when a Native is looking for land he prefers to obtain possession of land of his own tribe rather than lease the land of other tribes ?—Yes. 73. If the Maori wants to improve the land he needs the same facilities of finance as the white man I —-Yes. 74. Do you or do you not now understand that under the Act of 1892 the Maori was deprived of the right of competing for those leases? —No, we did not know of the rights we had at the auction or in the market. 75. Did you know or do you now know that the Act of 1892 deprived the Maoris of the right of competing for the leases? —No, I did not know. 76. Do you live anywhere near Parihaka?—No, a long way off. . . ;. ... 77. Do you know whether there are many Natives around Parihaka who are rich enough to be able to improve the lands even if they take them up ?— L Yes, there is a number of people who are working the land now. 78. But have the Natives round Parihaka a lot of money?-—I am not able to say that. 79. The Chairman.] Does the union consist of the old people and the young people, or is it confined to the older people?---Both old and young. 80. Are the decisions come to by the union binding on all its members? —Yes. 81. Is there any difficulty in getting the young people to co,me in and express their ardent desires to go to work if they got their lands?— The young people do come in and express their desire to go on the land and work it. 82. Do they find any difficulty in changing the old people from their old habits? —No, there is no difficulty ; they are the same as the young people. 83. Do you consider that the people as a whole have sufficient knowledge to cultivate the land should it revert back to them?—l think so. We have already shown that we can do it. We now have farms, and we are milking. 84. And do you think that they will improve in that knowledge?— Yes, I do. Inia te Ngongohau sworn and examined. (No. 31.) 1. Mr. Bell.] You have some land in the Parihaka Block?— Yes. 2. It is four miles from Parihaka? —Yes. There are 170 acres. 3. Are you the only owner? —Yes. 4. Do 3'ou own it, or do you hold it under an occupation license? —It belongs to me. It belonged to my parents, and I took the matter to the Court and got a title to it. 5. What are you doing with that land? —lam milking on it. I have thirty-five milking-cows. 6. Any other stock? —Yes, there are eight heifers coming into profit in the summer besides the thirty-five. I also have some plough-horses. 7. What is the quality of the land? —It is fern land, and rather poor; but I have brought it into its present condition by ploughing it and putting it down in grass. 8. Where do you send the milk to? —To the factory at Pongaraheu. 9. How long have you been working the land? —Four years. 10. What were you doing before that? —I was living at Parihaka. 11. Did you hold any special position at Parihaka? —What I did was to plant potatoes, kumeras, and marrows. 12. Did you have any special duty at Parihaka?—Yes, I used to go out working for Europeans in order to be able to purchase a share for myself. 13. Did you do anything Whiti?—That is what we used to do —to plant potatoes. 14. Who was looking after the commissariat department?—l was. 15. While Te Whiti and Tohu w r ere alive were the Natives farming as they farm now?—l know a number of young people who have come out to Parihaka, and are farming. 16. While Te Whiti and Tohu were alive were the Natives farming in the same way as they now farm? —No, different. 17. I think you are one of the leading members of the union? —-Yes 18. What does the union tell the Natives to do? —What we did was to see that the people were all supplied with food—that was the teaching of Parihaka. We teach the people first that they shall be energetic, and prepare food for the people who visit us, and my present position is one of the leading people. The present teaching is that we are taking the young people out of Parihaka and telling them that they shall go on to the land and farm. 19. Do you own some of the land in the Ruakere Block?— Yes. 20. What has been done with that land? —That land was simply grabbed by the Public Trustee, and I was not left a quarter of an acre of it. He took it and leased it at a peppercorn rental —about Id. per acre, or something like that. 21. Do you know whether it was leased under the 1881 or 1892 Act?— Under the 1881 Act. 22. Were you working that land when it was taken?—No, I merely had my name attached to it, and he took it. I did no work on it. . 23. Did you know it was your land before he took it? —Well, I knew by hearsay that- I-was entitled to a piece of land, but I had not seen the actual location of it.

86

i.'■'-Tβ ngongohau.;

G.—2.

24. Are there any Natives in your locality who are anxious to work but have no land?— Yes, plenty. 25. There are some working land besides yourself in the Parihaka Block, are there not? --Yes. " ' 26. Why are there not more Natives in the Parihaka Block working the land? —Some of them do not know where their locations are. Some of the locations have been surveyed, and I have instructed the young people to go on and work them. 27. Are there many Natives near Parihaka who have sufficient money to take up land?—No, they have no money. 28. How did you manage to ..start farming your land?— Well, I had some very good European friends. 29. What did they do?—A European supplied me with some cows. 30. Did you pay for those cows in any way?— Yes, I milked the cows and let him have half of the milk. 31. Have you finished paying for the cows?— Yes, long ago. 32. Do you owe any money now? —No. 33. Cross-examined by Mr. Welsh.] The European provided you with the cows? —Yes. 34. And you milked them?— Yes, and I gave him half the money. The cows are mine now. .35. And you sent the milk to the factory?— Yes. 36. Can you tell me what the factory cheque was for last season?—My books are at home, but for December it was £39, and for other months it fell to £30 and £29. It fluctuated, of course, as the season went on ; it dwindled down to £5 in June. 37. Can you say what it was worth during the whole season? —I could not figure it out now. 38. When you began working you had no money at all? —T had a few shillings—los. or .£l. 39. That was your start?— Yes. 40. Till the European came to your assistance? —Yes. 41. Who was that?— Mr. Harrison. 42. How many of you are there milking on the farm? —Three of us. 43. Do they share with you or do you pay them wages?— They are young people of my own family, and I provide them with food and boots and clothes. 44. Is there not a good deal of land round Parihaka left still? —Yes. 45. You had no money when you started? —No.' 46. And there is nothing to prevent the other people starting?— They have not been able to discover a good European like I did. 47. Do you know the stock auctioneers would lend them money or advance them herds?—l do not know that. 48. Mr. Kerr.] Did you start dairying after Te Whiti's death? —Yes. immediately after his death I started. Neha Kipa sworn and examined. (No. 32.) 1. Mr. Bell.] You own some land in the Kaitere Block, do you not , !— That is where I a.» living. 2. You lease some land from the Public Trustee? —Yes, 70 acres. 3. What rent do you pay?—l pay 9s. per acre per annum. 4. I think your mother is the owner of some ot that 70 acres? —Yes. 5. And she made an arrangement with the Public Trustee that yon need not pay rent for the 34 acres- —your mother's share? —Yes. 6. When did you take the place up?—l was born there. 7. When did you start to work the place?—As soon as I was able to do any work. 8. And have you been farming it ever since? —Yes, cultivating it in potatoes, wheat, and corn. 9. How long have you been milking on the place?— After the death of Te Whiti. 10. Were you leasing it Before the death of Te Whiti? —No. .11. How many cows have you got on the place now?—l have twenty-four in full milk. 12. How did you manage to buy fhose cows? —By producing wheat, potatoes, and corn, and selliner it and buying two cows at a time. 13. Did you do any work at Parihaka?—Yes. 14. Who cleared the gorse from the land and fenced it? —I did. 15. Was that before you leased it or afterwards? —When I first started farming. 16. Is there a cow-shied on the place? —Yes. 17. Where did you get the money for that? —I have only had it up about two years, and it was from the milk I sold that I got the money to nay for it. 18. Where does the nrlk go to? —To the Bell Block Creamery. 19. Do you do anything besides dairying on this land? —Yes, I get wheat, oats, and food crops. 20. How many acres did you put down at the last sowing?—lo acres of wheat and 7 acres of oats. 21. How many bags of wheat did you get from your 10 acres? —Eighty. 22. And how many tons of oats and chaff?— Thirteen. 23. How big is your milk cheque usually from the factory? —£16-odd when in full milk. 24. Do you owe any money on the place?— No. 25. Who does the work on the place?— Myself and my children. , Mr. Welsh: No questions. •- . .: . - Tfee CbfmmiaKwm adjourned till next day. ■

87

|H. NEHA.

Gh—2:

Havveka, Tuesday, 28m May, 1912 Hineone Neha sworn and examined. (No. 33.) 1.-Mr. Bell.] You are a daughter of Neha Kipa? —Yes. 2. How old are you ?—Fourteen. 3. Have you been to school? —Yes. 4. What standard are you in?— The Third Standard. 5. What do you do now?— Milk the cows. 6. On your father's farm? —Yes. 7. How many cows do you milk? —Sometimes six and sometimes seven. 8. Who milks the other cows? —My brothers. 9. Do you help in other ways on the farm? —Yes. Mr. Welsh: No questions. Tamaka Awarua sworn and examined. (No. 34.) t. Mr. Bell.} Where do you live ? —At Taiporohenui. 2. Have you any land there? —Yes, 61 acres. 3. Do you hold it under occupation license? —Yes. 4. What rent do you pay for the license? —1 am not quite sure, but I think £l\ or more. 5. Arc you the owner of any land leased under the West Coast Settlement Act? —Yes. "6. Do you know whether it'is under the 1881 Act or L 892 Act?— Under both. 7. What do you do with the Gl acres?—l am dairying on it. I own fifty cows altogether, but I do not milk them all on that section; they are on some other'lands about a mile or more away from the 61 acres. 8. Do you hold that land also under occupation license? —Yes. 9. How many acres have you there? —I have 43 acres. That land belongs to my mother and younger brothers. I applied to have the occupation license issued to them. 10. To what factory do you send your milk?—Tawhiti. 11. What amount of money do you receive from (he factory?- —1 have a statement of the amount given to me by the secretary of the company. [Statement put in, Exhibit B.] 12. Do you own any shares in the factory.? —Yes, seventy-one shares. 13. Did you ever farm before you started milking?— Yes, I was supplying Newton King's factory at Tawhiti prior to supplying the present factory. 14. Did you continue milking right on from then till now?—No, 1 only milked for one year, and then ceased. 15. Why did you cease?—We were advised by our elders not to milk —that we should go to Parihaka. 16. When did you start milking again ! —ln 1904. 17. But Te Whiti was not dead then? —No. 18. Why did you start milking before Te Whiti was dead?—l found that my elders were so wrapped up with Te Whiti that they would obey him in everything. If he had said "All swim into the tide," they w 7 ould have done it, and this made me think that it was not satisfactory for me to be one that might at any time be sent into the tide at the word of the chief. 19. What did you do with your cows?—l sold them, or some of them, to pay for a house for my sister at Parihaka. 20. How. did }'ou get money to start milking again?—By applying to my pakeha friends, who supplied me with money and stock. 21. Had you any cows of your own then? —Yes, I had not sold them all. 22. Did you give the pakeha an order on the factory money?— Yes. He agreed that I should allow him to Teceive half the milk cheque, but in my anxiety to wipe off the indebtedness as early as possible I sometimes gave him the whole of it. 23. When you started milking the second time were there any noxious weeds on the place?— Yes. There was gorse and fern and trees. 24. Have those been cleared off now?— Yes. I did some of it myself, and on some occasions 1 employed others and paid them'for their work. 25. Have you any family?— Yes, I have nine living. 26. How old is the eldest?— About eighteen years oi more. The eldest is a daughter. 27. Did your three eldest sons help you to work the place at one time? —Yes. 28. What has happened to those three?— The eldest girl is married, the second son is with me, and one is dead; but the younger children assist me when they are home from, school. -29. Do you 'employ an}* pakeha help?— Yes. 30. Do you pay them, or do they milk on shares? —One I employed and paid for a year, and there are others I pay so-much a week to. 31. D 6 you employ any Maoris? —Yes. I pay some by the week. 32. Do any of the Maoris milk on shares?— Yes. v - 33.'How many Maoris are you employing now?— One of them is managing one of my sheds, and he has a share in the milk. At the other shed one is working at so-much per week, assisting my son, because I attend to the outside work. 34. Do you cultivate your farm at all? —Yes, I grow potatoes, corn, carrots, turnips, and hay. That is what I had under cultivation this year, but I had a greater amount under "cultivation prior to that. 35. Cross-examined by Mr. Welsh.} Are you a member of the union?— Yes. 36. Can you tell me what your interests are under the Act of 1881—what .lands?—l haveinterests in land at Fraser Road. I have 5 acres in one block with my family. ' My'mother and brothers have other areas.

88

T. AWARUA.]

89

G.—2.

37. Is the 5 acres in Fraser Road entirely your own?— Yes, that is my own. 38. Outside Fraser Road, what other areas are you interested in under the 1881 Act? —That is the only one I know of. 39. In respect of the factory shares, you must hold the shares before you are allowed to supply the factory, is that not so?—No, I could supply without being a shareholder, but, of course, the money I would receive would be reduced in a greater measure. 40. You would not put your money into factory shares unless you were a supplier? —No. 41. Do I understand you to say that some Maoris milk on shares with you?— Yes. 42. Besides the Maoris who milk on shares for you, are you aware of any other Maoris who milk on shares for other people?—l could not say. There are Maoris working with Europeans on shares; they get half or two-fifths. 43. Are there many Maoris milking with Europeans on shares? —Yes. Corrigan is one; lie is the only one I know in this district. 44. Do I understand you to say that you occupy 61 acres of land that you hold in your own right, and that you also occupy another 43 acres which your mother and brothers hold? —Yes, we live together. Sometimes we live on the one section and sometimes on the other. 45. Do you pay your mother and brothers rent for the land you occupy?—No; but I take the whole responsibilitj- of the management, and if there is an}'thing required in the way of fences, or any difficulty crops up, then I effect the necessary arrangements. 46. Your mother and brothers live with you?— Yes. 47. And you provide the maintenance and upkeep, of the house, I suppose? —Yes; but if any difficulty crops up, or I want money, my relations would see that I was assisted. 48. How many of you live together?—My mother and father and my sister and brother. When my brother and sister married they shifted apart from us, but they would return after some time and live with us again. 49. Has your sister got any interest in this land?— Yes. 50. Do you pay her anything for the use of the land? —Not any specified or fixed rent. When I had money I would pay them something, but no exact amount was stipulated. 51. Mr. Bell.] Do you pay rent to the Public Trustee for both pieces of land?— No. I pay for one, and my mother and brothers pay for the other. Rangitaura Kahui sworn and examined. (No. 35.) 1. Mr. Bell.] You live at Waitara? —Yes. 2. Have you got any land? —Yes, 4f acres in the Araukuku Block. 3. Do you live on that land? —At one time my family lived there and worked on it, but before my wife died she said that we could not make a living off that piece of land, and that we should go on to her land at Waitara. 4. How many acres has your wife got at Waitara? —There are 77 acres of freehold land there, in which there are five owners. 5. What do you do on the land? —I am milking on it. 6. Do you support the five owners of the land?— Yes. 7. How many cows are you milking?—l have thirty milking-cows and thirty other cattle. 8. Have you got a list of your milk cheques? —Yes. [List produced and put in, Exhibit C] 9. Are there any noxious weeds on the land?— Yes, blackberries; but I keep it under, and do not allow it to progress. 10. What factory do you send your milk to?—Waitara Road. 11. Did you get any more money from the factory besides that contained in the list?— Yes. 12. Is this a telegram received by you from the secretary of the Waitara Dairy Factory in reply to a telegram from you asking how many shares you held [produced]?— Yes.' It says, "Five shares; received £90 bonuses four years; highest £27 ss. 6d." 13. Do you occupy any land besides the 77 acres? —Yes, I have leased a portion—2s acres. 14. What rent do you pay?—l pay 10s. an acre to the owners. It is freehold land. It is only about 5 chains from the 77 acres, and I occupy both pieces of land together. 15. Is there any other stock on the land besides the cattle you have mentioned? —Yes, I have four draught horses and four other horses. I have also twenty-five pigs, a spring cart, and a buggy. 16. How did you get the money to buy your cows? —At first I worked on the road, and I saved sufficient money to purchase seventeen cows. I then applied to the factory, and they bought eleven cows, costing £60, and I gave them the seventeen cows as security. 17. The factory lent you the £60? —They did not hand me the money, but they paid for the eleven cows. 18. This is the bill of sale or mortgage you gave [produced]?— Yes. 19. Under that mortgage you are to give to the factory half your milk cheque?— That was the written arrangement with them, but in my desire to wipe it off as soon as possible I gave them the whole of it. 20. Do you owe anything now ?—No. 21. You can produce your rate receipts?— Yes. [Produced and put in, Exhibit D.] 22. Do you know a man named Elwin?—Yes. 23. Do you remember whether there used to be any flax on his land?— Yes, it was rich with flax. 24. Mr. Elwin told the Commissioners that he burnt all the flax, is that true? No, it is not. Mr. Corbett and Joe Kelly bought the flax from Elwin.

12— a. 2.

[r. kahtji.

G—2.

90

25. Did they take much flax? —Yes. 26. Was most of the flax cut and taken away by them? —Yes. 27. I think you were employed cutting flax on Elwin's farm?— Yes, I was employed by Corbett. 28. Were any other people employed cutting flax? —There was a large number. 29. How long were you engaged in cutting flax? —I should say I was employed for two months cutting flax on Elwin's land. 30. Cross-examined by Mr. Welsh.] Are you a member of the union? —Yes. 31. Are you the owner of any land under the Act of 1881?— I do not know of any, but 1 will not say I am not. 32. Are you a beneficiary under any of those grants in respect of which leases have been granted under the Act of 1881 ? —I do not know whether lam or not. 33. Do you receive any rent from the Public Trustee? —The Public Trustee does not pay me any rent. The only rent I receive is that which I get under my father's interest. I have 4§ acres, as I have said, but the leasing of that does not pay for the cost of the license for the other land, because I have to pay more. Mr. Zachariah demands from me money outside the rent that he is receiving for the 4f acres. Mr. Zachariah: The witness has an occupation license in the Arakuku Block, the rent being 7s. 2d. per half-year. That is charged against his share in the block, which amounts to ss. Bd., so we ask him for the difference each half-year. 34. Mr. Welsh.] Is that all the land you occupy —the 77 and the 25 acres?— Yes, that is all. 35. And do you pa}- the owners any rent for the 77 acres? —No. 36. The Chairman.] But those owners are 370111- own people?— Yes, they are living with me. Raniera Karena sworn and examined. (No. 36.) 1. Mr. Bell.] You own some land at Bell Block?— Yes, 40 acres of freehold. 2. Your grandfather got the land under a compensation award? —Yes. 3. And he handed it down to you?— Yes. 4. I think that land is leased by you to a pakeha?—Yes; it is leased for twenty-one years, and it has eight years to go now. 5. Why did you lease it to the pakeha?—So that he could stump it. 6. What rent did you charge him? —3s. per acre. 7. Why did you not improve it yourself instead of leasing it?—l had plenty of work to do at that time, and my children w 7 ere not grown up. 8. I think you have a farm which you work in the Mangati Block? —Yes, 165 acres. 9. That is all scrip land?—l know it is land which we got from our ancestors. 10. How many cows do you milk?— Twenty-two. 11. Who does the milking?—My children. I have twelve. 12. Do you do any milking yourself? —Sometimes when my children are absent I do it. 13. Where do you send the milk to?—To the Bell Block Factory. 14. About what is the amount of your monthly milk cheque?— From £24 down. 15. You get bonuses as well? —Yes, about £30 a year. 16. Do you do anything besides dairying on the land?— Yes, my children and I crop the land. 17. Is all the 165 acres good land? —It is flat. There is about 70 acres in grass and the balance is sand. 18. Have y T ou done anything w-ith the sand?—We have been planting lupins in it to keep the sand from encroaching on the grass. 19. Did you work your farm while Te Whiti and Tohu were alive?— Yes. 20. Did you work it in the same way then as you are working it now?— No. 21. Cross-examined by Mr. Welsh.] Are you a member of the union? —Yes. 22. Are you a beneficiary in connection with any grants under the Act of 1881 ? —I think so. 23. What rent do you receive from the Public Trustee? —He pays me 6s. 3d. 24. What block is it in? —Matataiori. When my father died I succeeded him, and the amount was increased. 25. What was the amount increased to?—I do not know. 26. What blocks are you interested in?—Lepperton, Matataiori, and Puketapu. Mr. Zachariah: Those are not under the Act of 1881. Manuarupe sworn and examined. (No. 37.) 1. Mr. Bell.] You live at Waihi, near Waitara? —Yes. 2. Do you farm some land there? —Yes, 176 acres. 3. Is that all in one piece?—No; one section is 46 acres, another 50 acres, and others 25 and 21. 4. That is in the Ngatirahiri No. 2 Block?— Yes. 5. Is that your owti land? —No. 6. You hold it as trustee for your children? —Yes. 7. It is under occupation license?— Yes. 8. Do you pay any rent under that occupation license?—On the 21 acres; I lease it from the Public Trustee. 9. And the rest of the land is held under occupation license? —Yes. 10. Do you pay any rent for the use of the land? —No, because the land belongs to my children. It is ancestral land. The grandparents are now dead, and they have succeeded, 11. How long ago did you start to work this land? —Over ten years ago.

MANUARUPE.

91

G.—2.

12. What was the condition of the land then?— The 46 acres was almost covered with gorse. I ploughed it, and sowed it in oats and wheat. 13. Did you get the 50 acres at the same time as the 46 acres? —No, it was when the Public Trustee allotted papakaingas or homesteads. 14. In what condition was the 50 acres when you got it?— 2 or 3 acres were covered with gorse, and I cleared them. 15. What did you do with the 50 acres? —I ploughed it, and sowed it in turnips. 16. Then, the rest of the land you got later?— Yes, the 34 acres about five years ago. 17. And the 21 acres?— About nine years ago. 18. What is the condition of all the land now?-—lt is one of the best farms in the district. 19. Is it all well grassed?— Yes, the whole of it, and I spent £30 or £40 a year on topdressing and manure. 20. Are there any noxious weeds on it?—l object to noxious weeds growing on the land. 21. How many cows have you?—l have sixty milking-cows. 22. How do you milk them? —By machine. 23. How did you get the money to buy the cows in the first place? —By the sweat of my brow —by ploughing the land and sowing oats. 24. Did you sell the oats?— Yes, and also turnips. 25. How many cows did you start with? —Ten. 26. How long have you been milking? —Over six years. 27. How have you managed to get the additional cows? —I did not confine my operations to milking just the ten cows on that land, but I continued ploughing and sowing turnips, which I sold, and with the profits from the oats, wheat, and turnips and the ten milkers I bought other cattle. 28. What does your milk cheque run yip to per month?—£sl from the sixty cows. 29. For about how long would you get a cheque of that size in a year?— For three or four months. 30. And what bonus did you get last year?—£sl 10s. 31. I think you have one share in the North Taranaki Dairy Factory?— Yes. 32. What tribe do you belong to?—Manaporihi. 33. I think that tribe owns a block of land in the Rimutauteka Block? —Yes. 34. Of how many acres? —There are 500 acres altogether, but 300 acres have been taken by the Public Trustee, leaving only 200 for the owners. 35. Under what Act has the 300 acres been leased? —Under the 1892 Act, I think —that is the one with the perpetual lease. 36. Did the Public Trustee lease the remaining 200 acres?—No; he tried to get them. Mr. Fisher was the Reserves Agent then, and I met him at Waitara and told him that I had heard he intended to try and take the 200 acres, and 1 asked him not to, because the owners had no other land. There were forty-two owners. I told him that this land was not sufficient for the forty-two owners, and he said that 5 acres was quite sufficient for a Maori. I said to him, "It is all very well for a man like you to say that when you are receiving your £500 a year; you might be able to live on that, but I could not live on the 5 acres." I told him that 5 acres would not support me. 37. I think the land was left in the hands of the tribe? —Yes. 38. And you made arrangements with other members of your tribe? —Yes. 39. What was that arrangement?— Well, Mr. Fisher said to me on one of his rounds later that he would not say any more about the 200 acres, and that he did not yitend to touch it. Then I went to the pa to consult my elders and grandparents—the whole tribe—about handing the 200 acres over to me so that I could work it. The land was bush land, and it could not be easily cleared —it would require money to do it. I told them I had the money and that I would do it. I said it was not asking for the land for the enrichment of the elders, but for the benefit of our children, because that was all the land we had left. They all consented, and I cut down the bush and improved the land, had it all sown in grass, and fenced the whole of it. I have had the land between four or five years now. I told him that if they refunded to me the money I spent on the place I would show them consideration. They are old people, and I still provide food for them. 40. Are you ready to hand back the land to them if they pay you what you have spent on it? —What I meant to say was that I have already had the money refunded to me by the profits made out of the land, and consequently I am prepared to hand the land back to them if they wished to have it—l would return it to them. 41. What are you using the land for now? —I have sixty-four two-year-old cattle running on it. 42. How far is it from your other land? —Six miles. 43. Was it all in heavy bush?— Yes. There were 160 acres in heavy bush and the balance was fern and scrub, and it also had blackberries on it. 44. How much bush did you get down in the first year?—llo acres. 45. Is it good land?— Part of it is very steep. It is not all good land. Some parts of it a cow could not get over. 46. Are there any other milkers in your locality?— Yes, over twenty. 47. Grogs-examined by Mr. WelsJi.] Are you a member of the union? —Yes. 48. Are you a grantee of any grants of land leased under the Act of 1881?— Do you mean under the perpetual lease? 49. No, under the old lease? —No, but my children are. 50. In respect of what grants are your children interested? —No. 5 Block, Ngatirahiri, but I could not say the number of acres.

G.—2.

92

[MANUARURE.

pi. What rents do they receive in respect of that block?— They succeeded to their grand- . parents, and I cannot say how much they get. 52. What are they interested in?—Te Manuku, Te Uaua, Maine, Ngatitaruraue No. 5, and No; 2 Ngatirahiri, the block lam working in. That is all. 5-3. I understand you to say you have held these 200 acres for four years?- —Between four and five years. 54. How much bush have you cut down upon that land? —160 acres. 55. And how much have you grassed? —All of it. 56. Aud do I understand you to say that if the tribe asked for the land that you will hand it back to them without payment? —I say that when 1 have received back from the land the money I have expended, and I am nearly compensated for it now, 1 will return the land to them. 57. Will you tell me how much is owing by the land now for which you have not been compensated? —About £100. 58. Then, on payment of about £100 by the tribe you are prepared to hand back that land? —Yes, if 1 received the £100 1 would return the land to the tribe. 59. W T as Arapata the grandfather of the children? — Yes. Mr. Zachariah: No succession order has been issued yet for Arapata. 60. Mr. Welsh.] In the Ngatamaranga Block there are 6,186 acres, and the same number'of shares ?—Yes. 61. The grandfather's share was ten shares out of 1,086? —Probably; I do not know. 62. His rent was Bs. per half-year, and your four children's interest would be a quarter of that? —Probably, Mr. Zachariah: In respect of No. 2 Ngatirahiri, the four shares total forty out of 2,297, and the rent is £2 13s. 4d. for each half-year. Block 3, Ngatirahiri, are lands not under perpetual lease. 6.1. Mr. Kerr.] Did you secure any title to the 200 acres which you felled and grassed which is vested in the Public Trustee? —No. 64. You just took it up at the instance of your people?— Yes. 68. So that really you have no title—you are only there on suffranee?—Yes. I have 1 acre there, 66. You simply hold the land at the will of the Public Trustee; you have no title from the Public Trustee? — No. Pahunga Tumarua sworn and examined. (No. 38.) 1. Mr. Bell.] Dα you own any land? —Yes, 80 acres. 2,. Amongst how many owners? —Five owners. 3. Who. is working that land? —My brother. 4. On what land do you live?—Oeo Road, on the Ngatitama-ahuaroa Block. 5. Who is the owner of that land? —My wife. 6. How many acres are there? —There are 100 acres, held under occupation license. 7. Are you occupying any more land? —Yes, 190 acres of reserve. 8. What are you doing on that 190 acres?— Milking twenty-nine cows, and 1 have fortyseven heifers and six horses. 9. What is the quality of the land?—l'oor land. 10. How many years have you been milking? — I was milking for one year without a cowshed, and three years since I built the cow-shed — four yea,rs altogether. ... 11. Where were you before that? —At Parihaka. 12. How did you manage to buy your cows?— With the assistance of my European friends. 13. Did they lend you money? —They gave it to me for the grass. 14. Did you borrow money from your pakeha friends? —Yes, and with it I. bousrht milkinscows. b B 15. How many? —Seventeen. 16. Did you have any cattle on the land before you bought the cows?— Yes, I had some cattle on the land, which I fattened and sold. 17. Were the cattle your own?,—No, they belonged to my European friends. That was my start. . 18. Did you give a mortgage over your cows?— Yes, so that 1 could increase the number of my cows. ■ . 19. Have you paid off that mortgage?— Yes. 20. Do you owe anything on your cows? —No. 21. Have- you got with you your milk returns from Kaupokonui ?—Yes. [Produced and put in, Exhibit E.] L 22. What was the land like when you started to work it?— lt was heavily covered with gorse 23. Is it cleared now?— Yes. " b 24. Is it fenced?— Yes. 25. Who did the fencing?—My pakeha neighbours—one on each side 26. Who paid for the fencing?—Rauherekau. 27. Did you pay anything towards the cost of the fencing? Yes. 28. Have you got any sheds? —Yes, one which I built. 29. How did you get the material?— From the sale of the milk . ~,3C) Cross-examined by Mr. Welsh.] How many cows are you milking?— Twenty-nine 31. How many do you expect to be milking next season?— The whole of the forty-seven and the twenty-nine also. There will be about fifty cows altogether that I shall be mUkinl next season; I shall cull some out. musing next

93

G.—2.

P. TUMARUA.].

32. And are you milking on the whole of the land?— Yes. 33. It is not very good land, is it? —It is gorse land. 34. And who do you hold the 90 acres from? —The 90 acres was given to the Natives as a tirewood and timber and fencing reserve, and the grass on it was given to my wife, and as she was the sole owner of 100 acres the people said she could occupy this. 35. Therefore you milk upon it? —Yes. 36. And do you pay rent to anybody for it?— No. 37. How many other people are interested in the 90 acres besides yourself and your wife? — I do not know how many. 38. Are you a member of the union? —Yes. 39. Are you a grantee of any lands under the Act of 1881 which are leased to Europeans? —Yes. 40. Which lands? —Mokoia, Taumaha, Hapotiki, and Okotare. 41. What rent do j 7 ou receive from those lands?— Sometimes £11 and sometimes £12 a half-year Mr. Zachariah: Okotare is the only block in which there are any leases under the 1881 Act. There are 319 acres, eight original grantees, and thirty-four successors. Kirn Apimameke sworn and examined. (No. 39.) 1. Mr. Bell.] You live at Okaiawa? —Yes. 2. Do you lease any land?— Yes, I lease three different pieces of land. 3. What is the area of the first piece? —24 acres, at £1 10s. per acre. Then there are 18 acres at 12s. 6d. per acre, and then 20 acres (more or less) at 12s. 6d. 4. When did you take up those leases? —When I first started milking, in 1904. 5. In what condition was the 24 acres? —It was good land, but the fencing was not good. 6. Was it already improved?— Yes. 7. What sort of fence has it- got on it now? —It only had a wire fence when 1 took it up, but 1 have planted boxthorn fences now. 8. As to the 18- and 20-acre pieces, what condition were they in when you took them up? — All gorse, with the exception of perhaps a few open spaces. 9. I think the owners of those three sections are Maoris?— Yes. 10. And they hold under occupation license? —Yes. 11. When you took up those leases in 1904 had you any money? —I had a small amount, which I had worked for. 12. Who did you work for?— For Europeans. I also planted 10 acres of potatoes on land which I got from the Europeans. 13. Did you lease that land from the pakeha?—No, the arrangement was that 1 took the land in its rough state, cleared it, and planted potatoes, and left it improved. 14. What about the gorse on the 18 acres and 28 acres?—l and my brothers and some others 1 employed and paid cleared the gorse. . 15. What are you doing with the land now? —It has reverted back to the Maoris. lam not in possession of it. 16. For how long did you lease it? —From 1904 till last winter, except the 24 acres which reverted back last January. 17. What did you do on the land while you were leasing it? —Dairying. 1 started with twenty-six cows, and they gradually increased up to forty-seven. 18. How did you get the money to buy the first lot of cows?—l applied to the factorymanager, Mr. Joll, and he gave me the cows. 19. Did you pay him back for the cows? —Yes, long before he died. 20. Out of what money did you pay him?—He kept half the milk cheque. Sometimes I left the whole of it, so that 1 could get out of the debt quickly. 21. Were the 18 and 20 acres fenced when .you' took up the lease?—On the 18 acres two sides were fenced, but the creek side was not, neither the front. Since then I have fenced the front, and the creek forms the fence on that side. 22. What about the 20 acres?— That was fenced by the creek on one side, two wire fences on the other side, and I added two more wire fences. 23. What value do you put upon the improvements which you have effected ?—They are up to £4 10s. per acre. 24. What did you do with the cows when you gave up the lease? —I sold them. 25. Did you get any compensation for improvements?— No. 26. You held the lease for seven years?— For the 24 acres seven years and the other six years 27. You paid a rent of £1 10s. for the 24 acres and 12s. 6d. for the other land?— Yes 28. Was the whole thing profitable to you?— Yes. 29. Did you try to get a further lease of the land?— Yes. I did not get another lease because the owners wanted to do some milking. 30. Have they done anything with the land since you gave it up ?—Yes The 20 acres wis sown with grass, and I am having a house or kainga built there. 31. And you have put it down in grass again?— Yes, and lam prepared to start milking 32. Have you done anything with the 24 acres?—l only returned it to them in January and there are cows running on it. * " au " d <>, 33. What is being done with the 18 acres?—l do not know myotnb^llocks^ 6 ™ W & Hying -" 1 am takin 8' oontracte «n the road-driving

94

[Si apiMareke.

G.—2.

35. Cross-examined by Mr. Welsh.] Can you tell us the number of cows you were milking?— From twenty-six to forty-seven. 36. Are you a grantee of any lands leased under the Act of 1881 to Europeans? —1 am not sure. 37. Do }ou draw rents from the Public Trustee? —Yes, from the side of my mother and my aunt. 38. Where are the blocks?—Kairoa, Araheke —those are my mother's interests, and my aunt is in Kairoa. I do not know about my father's interest. We do not receive any rents for his interest, and Ido not know whether he is included or not. It is freehold land. 39. What is the name of your aunt? —Kerengahau. 40. Are you the only successor? —There are six of us. 41. What is the name of your mother? — Merehawanga. 42. And how many successors are there? —Eight of us. Mr. Zachariah: The witness has one-sixth of one-thirtieth of one share in Kairoa. His share would be 3s. sd. half-yearly, and in Merehawanga one-seventh of twenty shares out of 4,080, which amounts to 7d. Morkrb Whatitibi sworn and examined. (No. 40.) 1. Mr. Bell.} You live at Bell Block?— Yes. 2. You have got some laud at Kaipakopako? —Yes. 3. Have you ever worked that land?— No. 4. Now, part of that land was leased under the Act of 1881 and converted into a lease under the Act of 1892?— Yes. 5. What was the area of land remaining to the Maoris? —I have got 7 acres. 6. That is your share of the land that remains? — Yes. 7. What is being done with your 7 acres?—l gave it to my elder brother. lam putting cattle on it, and using it in the best way possible for the land and for milking. 8. 1 think you occupy it with your own share and your mother's share?— Yes. 9. On what land do you work? —On my wife's land. 10. Where is that?—Hoewaka, Bell Block. 11. Has your brother-in-law got any interest in that land? —Yes. 12. How many acres are there in the Hoewaka Block?—I understand there are 47 acres. 13. Used you to use that land? —Yes, 9 acres. 14. What crops did you have in it? —Oats, potatoes, 3 acres; corn, 1 acre. 15. What was the condition of the rest of the land?—lt is good land. 16. Was it all cleared when you started? —One part was in grass. 17. Did you work on it for many years?— Yes. 18. How many acres were cleared of gorse in 1907 ? —lt was the same in 1907 —it was nearly all grass; there were only one or two portions that had gorse on it. 19. Before the year 1907 had you cleared the land of gorse? —Yes. 20. What happened in 1907?— There were fences and a house built on it. There was an old house on it, and the railway was taken through the land. The old house is on one side of the railway, and the new house is on the other. In 1907 Mr. Fisher came and said to my brother-in-law that the land belonged to him. He chased us about, and said that we had to take the house off and go away. 21. Did he tell you to take the house away?— Yes. My brother-in-law said to him, "This land belongs to me and my ancestors," and Mr. Fisher replied, " No, that is not so —the land is mine." 22. Who was your wife's ancestor who owned the land? —Tatahana-. 23. How did he get the land? —He assisted the Government at the time of the war. 24. And was that why he got his land? —Yes. 25. When your brother-in-law told Mr. Fisher that the land had come from Tatahana what did Mr. Fisher say?—He said that did not matter, the land belonged to him. 26. What did Mr. Fisher do with the land?—He took it and leased it. 27. Do you know under whatT Act he leased it?—No, I do not know. He leased it to two men named Frank. Solway and Harry Lynn. 28. What did you do about the house which was on the land?—l told my brother-in-law that we would leave the house there, and let Mr. Fisher take it off. 29. Did you leave it there? —No, my brother-in-law pulled it down. He was the owner of the land, but he was afraid of what Mr. Fisher had said. . . 30. Did Mr. Fisher ask you to consent to his taking the land?— No. 31. How many acres did he lease to Solway? —Fifteen. 32. And how many to Lynn?—Eleven. 33. What has been done with the rest of the land? —Charlie Bayley took 5 acres. 34. That leaves 16 acres?—l heard from Mr. Jack, who was the Reserves Agent after Mr. Fisher, that we were to have that to settle on. 35. How many people?— Nine of us. 36. Do you live there now?— Yes. 37. Now, of the 47 acres, which was the best part, the part taken from you and leased or the part which remains? —The portion that was taken and leased. 38. Was that the part that had been improved by you?— Yes. 39. And what are you doing now?—We are just living on the portion left. 40. Are you doing any work?— Yes, for Solway.

G.—2.

M. WHATITIBI.]

41. Ornss-examined by Mr. Welsh.] Are you a grantee of any lands leased to Europeans under the Act of 18812 —Yes. lam also in the 1892 Act. 1 have lands leased under both Acts. - 42. What grants are they?—Kaipoko. That is under the Act of 1881. It was leased to Connett under the Act of 1881 for eighteen years by RennelL 43. What other lands do you hold? —I do not know that I have any other. Mr. Zachariah .pa"ys me rent for that one I have mentioned. 44. Do I understand you to say that so far as you are concerned you are not interested in any other lands under the 1881 Act? —Yes. The Commission adjourned till Thursday next, 30th May, 1912.

Hawbha, Thursday, 30th May, 1912. Waata Wiremu Hipango sworn and examined. (No. 41.) 1. Mr. Bell.] You live at Waitara? —Yes. 2. I think you have no land in Taranaki except what you have bought yourself?— Yes, I have none. 3. You were appointed chairman of the union when it was formed in May, 1909? —Yes. 4. And you are still an active member of the committee? —Yes. 5. Will you tell us the reason for the formation of the union?— First, each of the several hapus on the West Coast discussed the various matters applying to them as to the injuries from which they were suffering. Each party having discussed their own parochial matters, they convened a large meeting, which was held at Hawera in May, 1909. A great number of people attended that meeting from Parininihi to Waitotara, and it was by that meeting that I was appointed. 1 will now explain the objects of that union. Firstly, the question of the lands that had been wrongly taken from the Maoris; secondly, the promises made by the Government which were not carried out; that Christianity should be upheld; that they should urge their children to attend school; and that the landless Maoris should be considered —those Maoris who had practically the same right as those who had been included in the grants; that the lands under the Act of 1881 and 1892 should be returned to them ; that the farming and agricultural working of the land should be encouraged; and that committees should be appointed by each hapti to carry out the conclusions arrived at by the union. 6. Have those committees been set up? —Yes, and have done work. Decisions having been arrived at and ratified, a motion was then brought forward to appoint a President, and I proposed that they should elect some elderly man who had the interests of the whole of the people at heart —that is, the people extending from Parininihi to Waitotara, and he was discovered in Kahu Pukoro. On his appointment I rose and congratulated the people, and Kahu Pukoro thanked the people for having elected him, and for having completed the work that we had started to do of combining together for the assistance of the whole, because it was by that unity that they would be able to carry out their wishes and desires. 1 thought 1 was capable of diagnosing the position, because 1 am a man who travels right throughout the district, and I mingle with the people, and then I handed Kahu Pukoro my chair. 7. You told us you are not entitled to any of these West Coast Setltement lands? —None at all. 8. How did it come about that you took an active part in this movement?— Primarily because they looked upon me as a disinterested party who would not favour any one portion of them. 9. You told us that one of the reasons for the formation of the union was that the Government had not fulfilled its promises. Will you give us an instance? —In regard to that I would say that there was one hapu —namely, Ngatitama—who had 1.300 acres set apart for them for their maintenance. 10. Who by?—By the Commissioners, Messrs. Bell and Fox. Only 600 acres were allotted to the people, and I find that 700 acres have been sold by the Public Trustee. 11. Was it sold or leased? —It was sold. 12. Can you give us another instance? —There was some other land, 3,000 acres, allotted to Ngatimutunga. 13. Had they fought against the pakeha?—No, they were not warlike people. That 3,000 acres has been sold by the Public Trustee. 14. The whole of it? —I believe so. That is why those people are landless. 15. Have you any other instance?— Yes, another hapu, Ngatirahiri, were always loyal subjects of the Queen, and received approbation from Governor Grey. Portion of their land was taken. 16. Land which had been set apart for them? —No, land that they were in possession of or that they owned was confiscated although they were subjects of the Queen. 17. Had those lands been given to them by the Bell-Fox Commission?— Awarded to them by their ancestral right. They had an inherent right in certain lands which were awarded to them by the Bell-Fox Commission, and a portion of that was confiscated. Those are the reasons for the setting-up of these committees and the formation of the union. 18. Do you know how much of Ngatirahiri's land was taken? —A large portion—according to the elders about 10,000 acres. It reached to the other side of the mountain from the coast to Upper Waitotara. Waihi was the portion. 19. Now, do you understand what is the question in these proceedings?— Yes. I should like first to complete what I was saying as to the reasons why the committee was set up and the union formed. They proceeded to work, and an application was made in regard to the lands the leases

95

G.—2,

96

[W. W. HIPANGO.

of which were about to expire. They applied to the Government that those lands should not, on the application of the lessees, come under the Act of 1892, because they were quite capable themselves of taking the land and working it in a proper manner. They decided to make themselves a political body in order to elect a member to represent them, just as the Europeans elect a member to represent them, in Parliament. That is how they selected Dr. Pomare to represent them and endeavour to get redress for their injuries, and they are able to prove their ability to take the land and work it themselves. During my eight years' residence in this district, I have personally noticed the energy of the young people and their ability to work the lands on their own behalf by their taking up those portions that were available for them to take up. While the elders were alive the lands were held in common. Whoever did the work, it was looked upon as belonging to the whole community. 20. Have things changed now so far as that is concerned? —Yes. 21. You have told us that the Natives want their lands given back to them? —Yes. 22. Do you understand that in these proceedings it is only a question as to whether the Natives shall be allowed to bid for the leases?— Yes. 23. Why are you anxious that the Natives should be allowed to bid for the leases?— Because they will be able to bid and have the same advantages as the Europeans in procuring money as advances on security. 24. Do you think that if they get into possession of these leases it will help them later in their desire to get their lands handed back to them ?—Yes. 25. Why do you think it will help them? —They have so progressed and are so energetic in their work now that they will be able then to demand the freehold. 26. Why do you think you will be in a better position to demand the freehold after you have got into possession of the leases than you are now?— Because they will be able to wipe off all the liabilities and then say the land is now ours. 27. Can you say whether there has been any change in the Maoris since the death of Te Whiti and Tohu ?—Yes, a great change. 28. What is that change? —They are living on the lands and "building houses, and breaking away from communism, and showing energy in farming, and sending their children to school. They are so progressed that they are able to take their places in the good things of the world. 29. Do you know any Maoris who are in favour of letting the pakehas convert their leases into the 1892 leases?— Not that I know of. The proof of it is that they are united to this union. It has not been suggested that there is one among them who would break away from the union or say that the European should continue in the 18,000 acres. They are united in saying that this land should be returned to them so that they may work it. 30. Ka.hu Pukoro told us that he took a petition down to Sir James Carroll? —Yes. •31. Did you have anything to do with the petition?— Yes. We convened a meeting for the purpose of selecting the persons who should go to Wellington. The union sent an invitation to Sir James Carroll inviting him to come amongst us and meet us here. That was a large meeting held at Normanby, and Sir James Carroll came, attended by a number of chiefs from different parts of Wanganui, Ngatiapa, Ngatikahungunu, and Ngatiraukawa. 32. Was this after Kahu Pukoro had gone to Wellington or before?—lt was after Kahu went down to bring him up, and the pleas T have mentioned were put before him. Mr. Carroll complimented us upon our unity, and said it was the best and proper thing for us to unite in this way. He was very pleased to see it, and he was presented with a copy of the different subjects I have mentioned—a list of the objects of the union. 33. Did he say anything about the land?—-Yes. He said, "Yes, it is good; we will work together." There were about a hundred Maori milkers present, and he said he was delighted to see the young people so energetic and united. Sir James Carroll returned and took with him a list of the objects of the union. That was backed up by a petition taken subsequently to him by a deputation consisting of a large number of people. 34. I think you are the Mr. Hipango who presented the park at Wanganui called Hipango p ar k?— Yes. Mr. Welsh: No questions. 35. Mr. Kerr.~\ You know, do you not, that the Ngatirahiri people have a considerable area of land from the Public Trusteel^-Yes, at present, and then there was an Act passed, T believe, taking away the rights of these loyal people. 36. To the extent to which compensation awards had been granted to the Ngatirahiri people, the Public Trustee gave them lands under the Act?— Yes, I believe so. 37. Do you know how many acres were given ?—-I could not say. These subjects were discussed before the union. 38. You referred to promises that have not been fulfilled?---Yes, 39. What were the exact promises?— Those T have mentioned. I was there myself and saw the Ngatitama portion. Of that, 600 acres was returned to them, and it was investigated by the Court, but the balance of 700 acres was sold. 40. You say sold by the Public Trustee?— Yes. 41. But the Public Trustee has no power to sell—he has only power to lease?—He was the man appointed to look after the Native matters. Mr. Zacliariah: I might explain that. Ngatitama Reserve originally comprised 1,300 acres, and it is included in Parliamenary Paper A.-sb, 1884, see Schedule C, Native reserves, but not to be granted at present. By the time they came to be granted 700 acres had been sold, but not by the Public Trustee, presumably by the Crown. The lands mentioned by the witness as having been sold were not under the Public Trustee's administration. 42. The. Chairman.] Are you satisfied from your own investigations that the people are now particularly anxious to get on to their lands if they get them back and to work them ?—Yes. 43. You know that from your own personal knowledge?— Yes.

K. HUPA.:

97

G.—2.

Ratana Hupa sworn and examined. (No. 42.) 1. Mr. Bell.] You live near Opunake?—Yes. 2. Have you got some land in the Ngatitamaronga Block?— Yes, My cousin and I have each got 25 acres. 3. Under occupation license?— Yes. 4. And you have also got 45 acres near by under occupation license? —Yes. 5. When did you take up these lands? —I have the license here. The date of the license for the 45 acres is 25th May, 1899, and the 50 acres the same day. 6. What was the condition of those lands when you took them up?— Bush land, but there were 30 acres of fern and flax. The bush I cut down and the flax I sold to the mill. The fern was. cut down and burnt and the land grassed. 7. Was the whole of the land grassed? —With the exception of 6 acres which 1 left for firewood. The whole of it is now in grass. 8. Who did the clearing?—l did myself, and on some occasions I had my brother's assistance. 9. Did you get any stock for it?— Yes, twenty young cattle. 10. AVhere did you get the money to pay for the stock? —From the proceeds of the flax, and from work that I did for Europeans and working on the road. The calves did not cost so very much—from Bs. to 10s. 11. When the calves grew up, what did you do with them? —I sold the males and the cows I milked. 12. How many cows were there?—l commenced with seven, and subsequently increased them ■to fourteen milking-cows, and then increased them to twenty-five. 13. How long was that after you started milking?— Three years. Subsequent to that I became ill, and I went shares with a European in the milking. 14. Were you too ill to milk yourself?— Yes, I was not strong enough. After milking for one year with this European on shares I was advised by a European friend that he was not doing right. He was enclosing the cows at night time in a very small paddock, and then milking in the morning, and letting them out. I stopped him from milking then, and sent the cows away. . 15. Why did you not get your cousin to do the milking?—He was at Napier at that time. 16. For how long were you ill? —I was ill for some time. When I got well I started milking again. 17. When was that?—ln September, 1910. 18. How many cows did you start with them? —I had sixteen cows. 19. Before you started milking I think you bought some land at Opunake?—Yes, threequarters of an acre in Opunake. 20. Out of what money did you buy that section? —The proceeds of the sale of my cows. 21. What did the section cost?— Something over £100. 22. Have you still got it?— Yes. 23. Have you been offered any money for it?— Yes, now that the railway is supposed to go through a European has approached me and offered £140. 24. Did you accept it? —No, because it may reach £200 yet. 25. You told us you started in September, 1910, with sixteen cows? —Yes. 26. How did you manage to buy those cows? —1 applied to a European friend of mine to procure me some cows from the auction, and that I would repay him by giving him half the milk cheque, and the money has all been paid back now. 27. Have you got any more cows besides the sixteen? —1 sold a number of calves, and have eight heifers in calf. 28. Where do you send your milk to? —The Opunake Co-operative Company. 29. What was your biggest cheque the year you started? —£14. Of course, the cows were not particularly good. 30. What is your biggest cheque this year from the same sixteen cows? —£19 a month, from November to January. 31. Does your cousin work on the land with you?— When he returned from Napier he went on to his wife's land. He is not working with me, but let me use his land, and I make him a money gift in return. Of course, I pay the rates. 32. What is yonr cousin doing with his wife's land? —He is working on it, clearing the bush and building a house, and doing other work on the land. He will no doubt go in for milking by-and-by. 33. Is your neighbour a pakeha or a Maori? —A pakeha. 34. Is his farm in a better condition than yours? —I think mine is the best. 35. I think your wife has an interest in some other land?— Yes, in Ngatitara. There are five of them in 140 acres under occupation license. 36. Is it good land? —No, it is sandy, and when there is any wind at all the sand encroaches on the land. 37. How many acres of sand? —I should say about 40, and the rest of the land is good. 38. Was it cleared when your wife took it up?—lt was in fern and flax, and was very subject to encroachment by sand. 39. When did your wife take it up?— The same year as mine. There are five of them in the license. 40. Did you do any work on that land? —I sowed sandgrass to keep the sand from encroaching. 41. What about the rest of the land? Was the fern cleared?— The flax was cut and sold, and the fern land we together ploughed and sowed and grassed. 42. What is being done on that land? —They have their cattle running there, and sometimes

13— G. 2.

■6K&-2.

[B. HTJPA

I put mine there. I have put up a fence, so as to partition off the portion to which my wife would be entitled. .: " 43. Are they milking on it? —On a portion of it they are. There is a stream there but there is no road, and a portion of the land is on the other side of the stream, and the cattle are driven across it to the other side to feed. On one side of the river they are milking. 44. Do you know how they managed to'buy the cows? —I am not able to say. 1 would like the Commissioners to come out and have a look at my farm and the farm of my neighbour—a European —and see which is the best, because the Europeans say the Maoris are lazy. I say that the positions are changed—that the pakeha is the Maori and the Maori is the pakeha. That is all I have to say. Mr. Welsh: No questions. Tamati Whanganui sworn and examined. (No. 43.) 1. Mr. Bell.] You have land at Kaipakopako? —Yes, there are 7 or 8 acres of my own. 2. What are you doing with the land? —I am improving it and milking on it. 3. Is that the only land you are milking on? —No, there is another piece that I am milking on: It belonged to my grandparent, and lam working on it. 4. How many acres are you milking on all together? —There are 45 acres in Kaipakopako, and in Kairoa Block 98. 5. Where do you send your milk to? —To Bell Block. ;; 6. Who does the milking? —Myself, my wife, and my children. 7. What is the largest milk cheque you have received? —£36 a month for the 48 acres when the milk is in good flow. 8. And what bonus?—£2s. 9. You told us that you have some land in the Kairoa Block? —Yes. 10. You lived there at one time, I think? —Yes, in 1884. 11. Why did you go and live there? —Mr. Rennell told us to go on to our lands and improve them and put kaingas on. 12. How many owners are there in the Kairoa land?— There are about thirty owners. I myself am not in it, but my grandparent is. Mr. Zachariah: There are 493 acres. There were thirty owners, but there are about 110 by succession. 13. Mr. Bell.] How many of you went to live on the land? —I was the only one who went; the others were away at Parihaka and other places. 14. What was the condition of the land then?—lt was in bush, fern, and gorse. I first made a homestead/then I fenced the roadside, and felled part of the bush. 15. How many acres?— About 20 acres; and I ploughed portion of the fern land and sowed it in grass. -.■;■ ' 1.6. What happened in 1900? —Mr. Fisher leased the land, 17. Did you have any conversation with Mr. Fisher before he leased the land?— Yes I said to Mr. Fisher that he should leave out the portion that we had our kainga on so that my grand mother might have it. . J fe ' 18. Why did you go to Mr. Fisher and tell him that?— Because 1 heard from some Natives that Mr. Fisher had been out there viewing the land. 19. At that time how much of the land had you improved ?—3O acres that I had grassed 20. What were you doing with the land'—Running stock on it—fattening cattle 21. What did Mr. Fisher say when you asked him not to lease this 30 acres?—He said he would have to write to Wellington, but after that tenders were called and the land was taken Mr. Fisher told me that he had written to Wellington, but that tenders were out and he said that the land was gone. ■22. Did he lease the whole of the 30 acres:?— The whole lot of it, including mv improved land 23. Did not any of the 493 acres remain to you?— Yes, there were 98 acres left to us, but it was on the steep parts, and was covered with gorse. My improvements were taken 24. Who was the land leased to?— The 30 acres was leased to William Cole and Mr Crow 25. And who were the other lessees?—l forget the others 6th Dumber;'l9o0 gTandl,lOther^et *" ° CCnpati ° n license? ~ Yes ' T hflve i*. it is dated 27. That is for the remaining 98 acres?— Yes 28. What did you do with the 98 acres?-I looked for some one to clear a piece and I had 12 acres of gorse cleared, and I paid £1 10s. an acre for some of it and £2 an acre for other parts in grass. nbwf-Te., the whole of it has been cleared, and is now o>n '■■-..■ -30. How many acres of that were in bush ?—More than 50 acres 31 What are you doing with the land now?—l am using it for dairying. I have twenty five m-lking cows, some dry cows, and some young cattle. ' twenty- ■ 32. What factory do you supply?—Lep'perton. y 1 !?*^ o ? 3 J ' OUr obeqUe run Up to,—Tbe bl 'ff" cst monthly cheque was £24 tt' tH? *i ? olms? —* hflve not reived this rear's bonus, but last year it was £14 35. When this improved land was taken had the 30 acres been fenced?— Yes it was fenced ' ♦ « fencing materials besides the fences taken f-Yes there were somj 200 posts that I had paid some Europeans to split at £1 a hundred ° aredcenfforT ** fenci^Poste ' *» grass, and the kainga?-! never saw

98

&—£

f." v^HAjSTGAHUI.]

99

.38.. What improvements have you got on the 98 acres? —There is a cow-shed arid house lor the workers to live in. . 39, How did you get your money to buy the cows when you started milking?—l started to wpfk very young, and as I earned money I saved portion, and the time 1 went on to this land I was grown up. I had then saved a good deal. ~ . 40..And did you buy the cows out of that?— Yes, I bought some cows with the money I had : ," : arid "then I would sell'them and buy more. 41. Have you ever owed any money on your cattle at all? —No. ,'" ■' Mr. Welsh! No questions. EmwATA PuMiPB sworn and examined. (No. 44.)' 1. Mr. Bell.] You live at Waitara, and sometimes near Hawera?-—Yes. 2. You have land at Waitara and also here? —Yes. ..... 3. How many acres have you at Waitara? —I have 24 acres of freehold. ' ' 4. Is that scrip land? —Yes, and there are three owners. ,5.. And you have 340 acres at Mangamiemie? —Yes, that is in the Pukepapa Block. 6. How many owners are there in that? —I do not remember. • Mr. Zackariah: There are twenty-four. That is tribal land, and there is no occupation license. .7. Mr. Bell.] I think out of the 340 acres a piece was set apart for some of the owners? —Yes. Mr. Zachariah: There are 265 acres, two occupation licenses—eleven owners in one piece containing 147 acres, and four owners in 117 acres. ;."'■ 8. Mr. Bell.] You used to live with the remainder of the owners on the part of the land which was not under occupation license?— Yes. ... -9. Whit w.as the land like?—lt is good land, and is being used for dairying. 10. In what condition was it when you started was an old settlement of my elders. Itwas in its natural state when my elders first went to live there, and they improved it. 11. Did you go on with the improving?— Yes, and when we started milking it was quite improved, and is absolutely improved now. 12. When did you start milking?—ln 1890 they were milking. 13. How long did you go on milking?— Until Mr. Fisher came and divided it and took the land away and leased it. Of course, there was no land for the cattle to run on then. It was leased in 1906. 14. Did you have any discussion with Mr. Fisher about it?— Yes. When he told me he was going to take the portion we had and lease it to the Europeans I said that he had no right t6- ; take that portion that we had improved. Mr. Fisher said there were some of us absent, and, I said there were only three that were not present. He said that as for' myself I had land at Hawera. ■ -'15. Well, did he lease it? —Yes, he leased my 57 acres to Mr. P. Cole, who has some land adjoining, which I estimated at about 100 acres. 16. Has he had that land some time? —Yes. .ijA-7-.- Mr. Fisher did not lease all the land?— No. ■■-■ '18, Was it the worst part of the land he leased?—No, he leased the portion with our Maori house on, and we had an orchard containing apples and pears and other trees. :.■ .19: Had you got a fence on that part that was taken? —The kainga was fenced and also the orchard —the whole of the land was fenced for that matter. 20. Did you get any compensation for your kainga or orchard or fences? —When I asked Mr. Fisher about the kainga and orchard of the old man Tipene Warihi, Mr. Fisher said if it was valued it would come to about £40. .:, '21. What value did you put upon the improvements?—l would say £100. 22. Is that for all the improvements or for the house and orchard?— Just for the house and orchard. ' . 23. Do you know whether any compensation was paid?—l have never heard of it. ■■■•,■ 24. What did you do after this land was leased?—l went'on to my freehold—the 24 acres. 25. Had you been farming this 24 acres before?— Yes, I had a homestead there. I had two kaingas at this time, because I had'put up a kainga at Hawera in" 1901. 26. What did you do with those 24 acres when you went to live there?—l ploughed it, and sowed- some oats, and cropped it. • . 27. Now, I think three of you did own 80 acres near Hawera?—Yes. ,•• 28. And the other two owners are dead, and you succeeded to them?— Yes, my mother and aunt. ■ 29. Of the 80 acres, 10 acres are leased to the pakeha?—Yes, the Public Trustee leased it. 30. As to the remaining 70 acres, what are you doing?—l have improved it, and am dairying on it. This year I had thirty-seven cows. 31. What have you dona-with the 24 acres which you mentioned before?— That I have leased to a European, with the exception of an acre, on which there is a house, and I retain that for myself. My reason for leasing it is that I live so far away from it that I thought it best to lease it, so that the improvement would be kept up. ; 32. You cannot work the 70 acres and the 24 acres conveniently at the same time? No, they are too far apart. . 33. What factory..do you send your milk to?—Ararata, near Makino. 34. "Have you got your milk returns?— Yes. [Produced and put in, Exhibit F.] .35. Before you supplied the Ararata you used to supply the Normanby factory?—lt is the same factory, although it was then called the Normanby. [Returns put in, Exhibit G 1

100

[c. pumipe.

&.=*2

36. When did you start milking on the 70 acres?—ln September, 1905. _ 37. I think you have received a reference from the manager of the Ararata Dairy Factory?— Yes. [Produced and put in, Exhibit H.] 38 What was the condition of the 70 acres when you started to work on it I—lt was all oustt. 39: Who cleared it?—l did, with the assistance of some Maoris who were employed by me,. 40. How did you get the money to pay the wages?— From the produce from my twenty-four cows and from the oats and turnips. 41. When you started milking, how did you manage to buy the cows? —It took all my money to improve the land, and I then went to an auctioneer and asked to be supplied with stock for the land I had improved, and he agreed, on my paying him 10 per cent. 42. Do you owe anything now, or is that paid off?—lt is all paid off. 43. Are there many Maoris in your locality milking cows? —Yes. 44. I think you said you started in 1905 milking on the 70 acres?— Yes. 45. You do not run your cows only on the 70 acres? —No, I have land belonging to my relations, which I had improved. I found that the 70 acres was not sufficient. 46. D® you say that this land you got from your relations you had already improved?—No, it was only in 1906 I started to improve their land. '- 47. Did you pay your relations anything for being allowed to use their land?—No, I did not. It cost me so much to improve the land. They had about 30 or 40 acres improved. 48. And how nany acre? do you think you ran your cows on? —The block contained 102 acres, more or less. 49. Before you started milking did you have anything to do with cattle at all? —Yes. When I first went to the auctioneer I got some cattle and I was cattle-dealing. I was buying and selling until I started milking. 50. Did the sale of your cattle show a profit?—No, it was because it was not profitable that I turned my hand to milking. 51. And was milking profitable? —Yes. - Mr. Welsh: No questions. Tonga Awikau sworn and examined. (No. 45.) 1. Mr. Bell.] You live at Ketemarae? —Yes. 2. And you are interested, I think, in 600 acres in the Kaukuku Block?— Yes. 3. That is held under several occupation licenses, I think?— Yes. 4. There are about twenty people?— Not so many, perhaps. 5. I think some of those 600 acres have been leased to the pakeha?-—Yes, about 540. The first leases were for terms of five and seven years. 6. How many pakehas have got those leases?—A number. 7. In what condition was this land when you leased it to the pakeha? —It was in very bad condition indeed. It was the first part of the Kaukuku Block that was left for the Natives. 8. Was there any bush on it? —Yes, that was the condition of it. 9. Do you know whether this land had been offered for lease by the Public Trustee? — Yes, in 1885 Mr. Rennell told us that it was being put up to auction at 6s. 6d. an acre, but owing to the excessive price put on it no Europeans took it up. 10. Why did you lease this land to the pakeha?—Because we had no money, and we leased it so that they could improve it. 11. Were you charging any rent?— No. 12. Som; of those leases have come to an end? —Yes. 13. And where the leases have fallen in the land has been leased again to the pakeha?—Yes, but at a rental of £1, £1 55., and up to £1 10s. per acre —much more than the Public Trustee is getting for the land. That is under the Acts of 1881 and 1892. 14. Why did you not work the lands yourself?—We had no avenue of getting any money at all. 15. What was the money for when the land was improved? —We still could not get any money —we could not pledge cur bodies. 16. I think you are also interested in the Umutahi Block?— Yes, I have 8 acres there. 17. I think your nephews are living on that? —Yes. 18. Do you think the owners of the 600 acres would have worked it if they could have got the money?—-Yes. 19. Did you ever try to get the money to work it? —Yes. We applied to Mr. Fisher to advance to us or to show us how to get an advance. The person who made the application for us was Moropoka, but he was not successful. Mr. Welsh: No questions. Tinirau Aejki sworn and examined. (No. 46.) 1. Mr. Bell.] You live at Ararata?—Yes. 2. You are interested in 102 acres of Grant No. 3954, Ngatihawe Block?— Yes. 3. And there are now five owners ?—Yes. 4. It is held under occupation license?— Yes. 5. When did you take it up?— Between 1893 and 1894. ... 6. In what condition was the land then? —All bush. There are six owners—three men ■•and three women. . 7. What did you do with the land when you went on to it in 1893 or 1894 1— Felled the bust, myself and Tekuku.

G.—2

T. AEIEI.I

101

8. Was he one of the owners? —Yes, and the third is dead. 9. How many acres did you fell? —Between 35 and 40. Then one of us got ill, and we decided to give it our man Iriwaata Punipi to complete the clearing. 10. How long was he to have it for?—l do not know. We did not make any agreement or any stipulation as to time. 11. Did you hear Iriwaata say that he undertook to fell the bush? —Yes. 12. Why did you let Iriwaata have the place instead of keeping it yourself? —My mate was ill, and I thought by letting Iriwaata have the land he would knock the bush down sooner. 13. Had you got any money at that time?— No. 14. Have jou got the land back now? —Yes. We are working it, and when we get money we will work it further. We have cattle running on it, and the other man is milking. 15. Are you cultivating the place at all? —Yes. 16. Are there any stumps still on the place?— Yes, plenty, but I am working on them and ploughing. 17. Do you still hold the whole of that 202 acres ?—There is another man who has been put on 20 acres of it by other Natives, and it has been divided by the Public Trustee. Some Maoris put him on with the Public Trustee's consent. 18. Did you agree to lease to this other Maori?—No, I did not consent. 19. Is this other Maori in the grant of this land?— No. 20. What is his name? —Matangi. 21. In what condition was this 20 acres when this Native was put on? —It had been improved. 22. Were there any stumps on it?—On a portion of it, but I had stumped and ploughed portion of it. 23. Did you get any compensation for your improvements on these 20 acres?— No. Mr. Welsh: No questions. Mr. Zachariah: In fairness to myself, I should like to explain the position in connection with the Maori put on this land. One of those in the subdivision is an absentee —a blind man, living in Auckland. He was not using the land, and there is a very deserving Maori who is in the grant to whom I gave 20 out of the 32 acres, which he is occupying. Wi Kaapa, of Auckland, sanctioned it. Witness: Did you receive the consent of Wi Kaapa? Mr. Zachariah: He has given me permission to give him the balance of the land, provided Matangi pays the rent. Witness: That is satisfactory, if you have received authority. Nga Rewarewa sworn and examined. (No. 47.) 1. Mr. Bell.] You live at Fraser Koad? —Yes. 2. And you have 53 acres under occupation license? —Yes. 3. Did you take that land up?— Mr. Fisher allotted it to me. 4. Who lived on it after you took it up?— Myself and my husband, and our children. 5. In v.hat condition was the land when you started on it?—lt was fern land, but it is all cleared and improved now. My husband and myself cleared it. 6. 1 think your husband is dead? —Yes. 7". Are you still living on the land?— Yes, I have cows on the land, and I am dairying. I have fifty-nine cows. 8. You do not keep them all on the 53 acres—you have some other land, have you not?— Yes. 9. How many acres?—l do not know how many acres, because the Public Trustee has cut the back part off. 10. How many acres were there? —127, which belonged to my father, mother, and brother. They had it under occupation license. 11. I think your brother and father are dead? —-Yes. 12. And your mother is still alive? —Yes. 13. Do you support your mother? —Yes, and my children. 14. Is it some years ago that the Public Trustee took some of the land?— Yes. ' 15. How much of this land was cleared when part of it was taken?— There were portions of it that had been improved by our elders before the taking, but there was some bush on it also. 16. Was half of it cleared?— There was about as much bush as there was improved land. There was a clump of bush here and there, and then a clear part, and then more bush. 17. When did you first know that it was going to be taken? —I saw the survey line. Ido not know how much was taken. 18. Who was it given to? —To Europeans—to Jock O'Donnell. 19. Were you living on the place at the time?—No but I had a house on it. 20. They did not take your house, did they?— No. I also had an orchard of apples and plums, and that was taken by the Public Trustee. 21. At the time it was taken were you doing anything towards improving the land? Yes. 22. Were you working at the bush?— Yes. 23. If you had been left alone, would you have cleared the bush?— Yes. 24. Did you make any protest about the land being taken ?—Yes, I sent a man to Wellington —Ngawini, a relation of mine. 25. But the land was taken all the same? —Yes. 26. As to the land which was left, in what condition is that now? Is there any bush on it?— There are small portions of bush that I left on purpose for firewood, but the other bush has been cut down and the land grassed. . 2.7. How did you get the bush down?—l paid a Maori named Ngatere to do it. 28. Are there any fences on it?— Yes.

G.—2.

102

[N. fcfiWASfifWA.

29. How did you get the money to pay for those things'!— From the milk. The clearing has been finished eight years. ■*' 30. You have married again, I think? —Yes, to Whareaitu. -2 31. F think he was one of Te Whiti's men when Te Whiti was alive?- —Yes. 32. Do you know what he did at Parihaka?—He was the poi master. . ■ 33. Does he work on the land now? —Yes. - 34. I think he has some land on the other side of the road? —Yes. 35. That land is leased to a pakeha?—Yes, but it was leased before I married him. ■ ■ 36. When you started milking, how did you get the money to buy your cows? —My son worked for Europeans, and that, together with the money I received from Mr. Fisher, purchased the cows. ■ - 37. Do you mean the rent you received from Mr. Fisher?— Yes. Mr. Welsh: No questions. The Commission adjourned till next day. . ..'.

Hawera, Friday, 31st Mat, 1912. Ramatae Ore sworn and examined. (No. 48.) 1. Mr. Bell.] You live at Otakeol —Yes. ':..:■:. 2. I think you are occupying some 143 acres altogether there? —Yes. 3. And 25 acres of that, I think, belongs to your mother? —Yes. 4. And the remainder is one part of 75 acres and one part of 43 acres?— Yes. 5. For the 75 acres you got an occupation license two years ago? —Yes. 6. But you had beeu occupying the 75 acres before that? —Yes. 7. In what condition was the 75 acres when you first went to live there?—lt was in bush, and I felled it. The 25 acres was also in bush, and I felled that also. There were 67 acres out of the 100 I felled, and the other I left for shelter. ■ 8. Now, in regard to the 43 acres, I think that was leased to a pakeha at one time? —Yes, my elders leased it. I was fifteen years old when 1 first heard of the lease, but it had been leased before that. 9. How long was it leased for?—l remember my lease —the lease ratified by Mr. Fisher, and I was fifteen years old then. 10. Who arranged that lease, you or Mr. Fisher? —Mr. Fisher proposed to me that it should be leased, and that he should lease it, and not myself. 11. Was there anything said about how long it was to be leased for? —I understood from Mr. Fisher there was no specified time j —that it could be terminated at any time. 12. Did you'ever' ask to have it terminated? —Yes. After it had been leased for about two years I wished to occupy the land, and asked that the lease should be terminated. 13. Who did you apply to? —To Mr. Fisher. 14. Did he get it back for you? —No, he said I had better take the money, and let the lease go on.. - ■' 15. What happened then? —I went to him three or four times, and he always replied the same. 16. Did you get it back in the end?— Yes; I put it in the hands of a solicitor, and he got it back for me. 17. What did you do with it when you got it back? —I farmed it and put a homestead on it. 18. Did you work and use the land? —Yes. 19. In what condition was the land when it was leased to the pakeha?—lt was in gorse, some parts only. 20. Was the gorse cleared when you got it back?—-No. 21. Was it better or worse when you got it back? —It had become worse, and I cut it down. All the old" gorse is off it now, but, of course, there are a few young shoots coming up here and there, and I am keeping them down. 22. How did you get the money to fell the bush on the 100 acres? —I had some milking cows before that, and I sold them. 23. Where were you running those?—On the 43 acres. 24. What are you doing with the 43 acres now?—l am living there and milking on it. I have twenty-four cows. 25. What factory do you send your milk to? —To Joll's. . How big is the milk cheque you get?—l am milking on shares, and I only receive half. 1 am ploughing and growing turnips and barley. 27. What are you doing with the 100 acres? —I have cattle grazing there, seventy-one cattle on the 100 acres, and I have also some on the 43 acres. 28. Do you propose to keep on grazing, or do you propose to use the land for some other purpose ?—I think I will be able to go in for dairying on it this year. 29. Why have you not been using it for milking before?— Because I had a bad burn on the land, and a lot of weeds came up. : 30. Cross-examined by Mr. Welsh.] Who are you milking ou shares with?— Thomas Hall, a European. . ■ 31. I want to refer to the 43 acres : the Public Trustee did not lease that land to any one when you were a boy of fifteen, did he?—lt was when I was about fifteen that Mr. Fisher said it

-K.,-,OEE.]

103

G.—2.

would be better to lease it, and he would lease it so that there would be no difficulty about the lease. , 32. Who signed the lease?—lt was Mr. Fisher, myself, and the lessee who talked about the -matter. I consented to the lease because he said it would be better, and that if I dared to lease it myself without his consent he would take the land away from me. 33. Were you trying to lease the land to somebody else without Mr. Fisher's consent? —I was then young, and not able to work the land. The land had been under lease before by my parents, and when I went to get the money Mr. Fisher proposed that the lease should be put in a proper position. 34. Who prepared the lease?—l do not remember, but I know we signed in a room at Otakeo, Mr. Fisher being present. 35. Who was it leased to? —To Denny Carroll. 36. And how long was the lease for?— Mr. Fisher told me there was no stipulated term, and that if I wished the lease terminated it would be done. 37. Afterwards you applied to Mr. Fisher to terminate the lease—Yes, and he said, "You had better receive the money instead." 38. Do I understand you to say that Mr. Fisher said the lease had better go on?—Yes,,he said I was too young. 39. Then you went to a lawyer?— Yes; McCarthy and Cap!en. ■40. Did they go to law over the lease with Carroll? —I do not know how they proceeded. I only know that two months afterwards Mr. McCarthy told me I would receive the land back again. 41. Did Carroll give back the land or did the Maoris have to turn Carroll off by force?—No, it was the Public Trustee who gave him three months' notice. 42. Do you know the section or the block where this 43 acres is? —Section No. 14, Block I, -OtakeOi 43. Who were the elders who owned the land before you got it?—My parents. It was Terama's land, and is on the Auroa Eoad. 44. Regarding the 100 acres, how long has that been felled?— Between two and three years. A European felled it, but I paid him cash for it. ■ : 45. Do I understand you to say it was felled two or three years ago?—l believe so. 46. Are the cattle grazing on that land yours, or do they belong to the rest of the people?.— They are my own. 47. Have you ever done any milking for yourself?— Yes, last year. I milked eighteen cows on the 43 acres. 48. Did you have any assistance?— Yes, a half-brother of mine helped me. 49. Did you like the life? —Yes, -at that time I did. 50. Was it pleasant work? —Yes. 51. Then, why are you not milking this year? —Because I wished to extend my work. 52. You wanted to plough on the 100 acres? —No, other areas. I am ploughing now on my step-father's land at Okaiawa, and also at Otakeo. 53. The land at Otakeo, is that the 43 acres you referred to? —No; the land at Otakeo belongs to another relation of mine. 54. Then, I understand you are doing no work on the 43 acres at present, but that is being milked on sTiares by another person?— That is so. 55. Did you get tired of milking, and found the life too hard, and thought you would get a European to do it for you?—-No, it is not because I was tired, but I wanted to increase my -operations. 56. How could you increase your operations by working on your step-father's land?—l wish to have a number of works. 57. Are you being paid by your step-father for the work you are doing on this land?— ■I wanted to improve the land of my step-brothers, who are young people, and also to improve i;th« land of my step-father. 58. How many acres are there in the lands of your step-people that you are working on? —-80 acres, and there is myself and a number of my people working on it. There are three of us. We are ploughing and growing turnips. 59. Those turnips have been income time? —Yes. 60. What are you doing on the land now? —I am cutting gorse on the reserve. 61. Not on the step-father's land then?—No, on some other land. 62. On that land where you are growhur turnips, what happened to the turnips?— They are growing, but the turnips have been sold to four Europeans—the three brothers Bourke and J. Patterson. 63. Patterson has a number of dealings with the Maoris, has he not?—l could not say. 64. Do you know that Patterson occupies a large area of these occupation lands? —He may from others, but he certainly does not from me. 65. Do you know as a matter of fact that Patterson does occupy a great deal of land from the Natives? —I cannot reply to that any further. T think you had better ask some other Maori, not me. 66. No, I want you to say?— Well, I say he is not leasing any from me, and let the others speak for themselves. 67. Do you know of any other Maoris who have let their lands to Patterson?—Well, speaking for mv own district, Otakeo, he has no land there. 68. Do you know whpre Manaia is? —Yes. 69. How far do you live from Manaia? —About six miles. . .-'. 70. Do you know of many Maoris about Manaia who have let their lands to Patterson?—l do not know. There are plenty of Maoris at Manaia for you to ask that, and some of them are present here.

G.—2

[c. ore.

71. Who suggested to you to sell your turnips to Patterson and Bourkes? —Patterson asked me himself. I thought it very good to sell the turnips to him because he is a moneyed man, and there would be no trouble about the money. 72. What did you sell the turnips for?—£3 10s. per acre. Patterson got 53 acres at £3 10s., and the balance of 24 acres the Bourkes had. 73. At the same p_rice?—No, at £3 13s. There were only 77 acres out of the 80 in turnips. 74. I presume Patterson has a right to have his cattle eat his turnips off the land —he does not have to pull them up?— The cattle would be turned on to the land until the turnips were consumed; they have started now. 75. What is to happen to the land when the turnips are eaten off? —It will be put in grass by my brothers and myself. 76. Will Patterson have any right to that grass?— No. 77. Are you quite sure? —Yes. 78. It is only the turnips that Patterson has a right to graze his cattle on?— Yes, and the same with the Bourkes. 79. And then the Native will put the land back into grass?—We may put barley or grass in it. 80. Do you purpose manuring the ground at all before putting barley or grass in? —Well, we put 6 tons of manure on with the turnips. 81. I mean when the turnips are off? —That is a matter for consideration when that time comes. 82. Has Patterson paid you the money for the turnips yet?— Yes. 83. How has he paid you?—By cheque to myself and my step-father. 84. What is step-father's name?—Tekahu Kopoturu. 85. Did you receive your share of the money? —Yes, but I cannot say what it was because we did not divide it all at once. 86. Patterson gave a cheque to your step-father, did he not? —Yes. 87. What became of the money?— How do you mean? 88. Did the step-father cash the cheque at the bank ?—Yes. 89. And what did the step-father then do with the money? —He gave it to vs —his children. I do not remember how much I received. 90. I want you to tell me how much you received? —I have forgotten. 91. Have you received any money at all from that cheque from your step-father?— Yes. The amount could be found out by looking up the cheque. 92. I want you to tell me the amount of the cheque? —I do not quite remember. It was not all in one cheque; there were several cheques. Both Patterson and the Bourkes gave us some money when the arrangement was made, and subsequently when the cows were put on the land we got other cheques. 93. I want to know how many cheques Mr. Patterson has given you in respect of the turnips? —Two cheques. 94. Do I understand you to say that your step-father has received two cheques from Patterson? —One of the cheques both my stepfather and I were in, but the other cheque I am not sure whether I alone was in it or my father and I, but the larger cheque I know was to my father and I. 95. Which was the largest cheque, the first or the second?— The first. 96. Who cashed the first cheque?—l did, and my father and I had the proceeds. 97. How much did you have and how much did your father have? —I have already said that I do not remember. 98. I want you to try and think: what was the amount of the cheque you cashed? —I am not quite sure; I think it was about .£lO3. 99. And what did you do with the money?—l brought it to my step-father. We all had the money —my step-father, and my brothers, and myself. T took the cheque to the bank and cashed it, and I gave the whole of the money to my step-father. 100. Did you receive any of thnt money back from your step-father?— Yes, but I do not remember how much. 101. How long ago did it htippen ?—lt was some time in February or March. 102. How much of that money have you had back since February or March? —I got some on one occasion and some on another —it was not all at once. I did not write down the amounts I got, and do not remember what they were. 103. As to the second cheque, when was that cashed? —As soon as I received it I took it to the bank. 104. How long after the first cheque did you receive it?— The date will be on the cheque; T do not remember. 105. Can you give me any idea : was it two or three months after? —Not very long after. 10(5. What was the amount of the second cheque? —I have forgotten; the amount will be on the cheque. 107. What did you do with the money when you cached the cheque? Did you give it to your father? —It was only about £20 or £30, and I kent that myself. 108. Are you ouite sure you kept that? —Yes. I believe it was in my name only. 109. Mr. Be/Z.] I think you own some farming implements and some houses?— Yes. 110. And you do other work besides working on your step-father's land?— Yes. 111. You do some ploughing for Europeans?—l have hay contracts. I only do ploughing for myself. 112. Do you do any contracting on the roads? —No, T tendered for them, but I have not secured a contract.

104

G.—2.

M. POMAEE.]

105

Maui Pomare sworn and examined. (No. 49.) 1. Mr. Bell.] You are a member of Parliament, representing the Western Maoris? —I am. 2. I think you yourself are a descendant to a certain extent of the Taranaki tribe? —I belong to these tribes. 3. And have you made a careful study of them?—l have. 4. I think you are a medical practitioner, qualified abroad ?—I am. 5. And you were for some years in the Health Department?— Ten years in the Health Department. I was chief of the Native section. 6. So that you had an opportunity of making a careful study of the Natives throughout New Zealand? —Yes, I had. 7. Now, I want to know whether you know anything about the early history of the tribes in this district so far as farming is concerned? —Well, I think you will find that in Dr. Thompson's history of New Zealand. It gives a general summary of what the Maoris could do. I know my father was engaged in wheat-production himself, and the Maoris generally in his time were great wheat-producers. 8. Were they particularly successful in this district? —They were particularly successful considering the difficulties under which they laboured, because there were few horses —in fact, no horses at all at one time —and they had to carry the wheat on their backs in the early days. 9. Did this wheat-growing cease during the Taranaki war?—lt did. 10. And then the Natives' land was confiscated, but we have dealt with that. I want to know from you what happened to the Natives after the confiscation and the giving back of some of their lands?— Well, after the war, and in fact prior to the war, events which led up to the war caused the Maoris to distrust the pakeha a great deal. The war was forced on them on account of the land, and during the war, in 1864 and 1865, Sir George Grey made certain Proclamations. I think it was in December, 1864, and November, 1865, that these Proclamations appeared in the Gazette. It gave the opportunity to the Maoris who were carrying arms to lay down their arms and come under the protection of the Queen's mana. It guaranteed the security of the lands of the loyal Natives for ever. Then subsequently an inquiry was held because of certain representations that were made by the Maoris; then we had the Bell-Fox Commission, in which again, according to the Crown grants which they issued —392 in number—to 5,000 Natives, an ever-and-ever security was reiterated. The result of the war caused the Maoris to look at it from a different standpoint to the pakeha, and they could not see that it was just, because they had asked that the troubles should be inquired into; but the pakehas persisted in sending armed demonstrations, which precipitated the war. The Maori said this was a violation of the treaty which they had with the Queen, because the pakeha was taking the land without their consent, which the treaty expressly said should be first obtained before any Maori land could be taken. 11. After the land was given back with this "ever-and-ever security," as you term it, what happened to the Maoris then : did they start again to farm, or what did they do?— The Maori objected to this arrangement. They said, " This is a one-sided bargain, but though it is a one-sided bargain it is not altogether hopeless, because some of the land is still given back to us." There were given back 200,000-odd acres, but one million was confiscated. So of a bad bargain they made the best of it. 12. Now, suppose the Maoris had been told in 1881 that, except for the lands which were reserved and made absolutely inalienable, all the lands which were to be leased were to be leased for all time, do you think there would have been peace?—lf that had been told to our people they would have been fighting still. 13. Now, I think before the 1881 Act and afterwards the Maoris were congregated at Parihaka?—Yea. 14. Why did they congregate there?— They congregated at Parihaka particularly to brood over their wrongs, and to discuss the best methods of getting those wrongs righted. They listened to the words of their kaumatuas —their old men —Te Whiti and Tohu, and they used to go there on the 18th of every month. 15. I think you yourself were in Parihaka in 1881?— Yes. 16. You were only a child then? —Yes, but I remember it well. 17. Then you were away for some years in America and elsewhere studying medicine? I was. 18. In what year did you return to the Dominion? —1900. 19. That was before Te W T hiti and Tohu died?— Yes, considerably before they died. 20. Did you go back to Parihaka?—l was a frequent visitor at Parihaka.' I might mention that my sister is married to Te Whiti's son. 21. I suppose you went to Parihaka in connection with your duties in the Health Department?— Yes, 22. So far as the Health Department was concerned, had the Maoris advanced when you returned to New Zealand — had they shown any step forward at all? —In a relative degree they had advanced, but there was a great deal of difference between the Parihaka of the olden times and the Parihaka of recent years. 23. Will you just indicate the old Parihaka conditions and the conditions now, since Te Whiti and Tohu have died?— When I first went there in 1881 I was a child it was'just after Bryce's invasion. The soldiers were still there, and it was impressed on my mind very greatly because of the soldiers, and for another reason. My mother's place, where she and I were stay, ing, was right on the road to the graveyard, and every morning from five to ten people weie carried off to be buried. Ihere was an epidemic of typhoid at the time, and whenever I had nightmare after that it was seeing corpses being taken to the graveyards. That impressed my

14— G. 2.

106

[.M. POMABE.

G.—2.

mind greatly. The houses then were all Maori whares; there were no sanitary conveniences of any kind, no drainage and no water-supply, no pakeha houses, no latrines, and nothing in the shape of sanitation. The Natives used to congregate on the 18th of every month in hundreds. 24. Why did they congregate on the 18th of every month? —That was the day fixed that they'should congregate, and that was also the date when the troubles first commenced. The war first commenced on the 18th of the month. 25. And they also went to hear the word of the prophet? —Yes. That was the picture then. Years followed, the Maoris began to gain a little civilization, they began to improve their conditions, and to-day—l am talking of Parihaka of some two or three years ago —we find it is the most model Maori village in New Zealand, and 1 can say that, being a sanitary officer. 26. So that Te Whiti and Tohu did not keep the people back in some directions? —Oh, no. There to-day we find drains, water-supply laid on; there is a bakehouse which cost over £400; there is a cemented abbatoir, and houses from the pseudo-whare to the palatial mansion of about thirty or forty rooms. That is the Parihaka of to-day. 27. So that Te Whiti and Tohu did not prevent the people going ahead so far as sanitation was concerned. Did they encourage them to go ahead in other directions? —So far as they knew, according to their lights, they did. That is up to Te Whiti's death, but since his death another change has taken place. 28. 1 want to refer to a report which you made as officer of the Health Department on the 11th June, 1907?— Yes. 29. That was before Te Whiti and Tohu were dead? —Yes. 30. The report says, " I have rejoiced greatly in the steadfastness of our Maoris in dairying pursuits, because it has not only silenced a great many of our critics in regard to the ability of the Maori to stick to anything for any length of time, but chiefly because of the altered conditions which have been brought about through this industry. This serves as a good example of what can be done with the Maori if he is given opportunity. The filthy surroundings, the low unventilated whares, the indolence, the poorly fed ragged children of a few years ago are indeed a great contrast to what we find now, for nearly all the Maoris are living in comfortable, floored, and well-ventilated cottages. There is no more idleness, but they can be heard each morning singing merrily as they take their milk to the local dairy. The children are tidy, and have plenty to eat —the cheque comes in every month. Such is the picture about Nuhaka. We would that the whole Maori population were thus employed. We must not suppose that the Nuhaka Maoris are the only ones who are employed in dairying pursuits. There are Maoris in all districts milking cows. The attached list will give you an idea of the number so engaged, with the approximate number of gallons and number of cows owned by each individual. A great many of these Natives obtained their cows from the factories on shares, and I am pleased to state that they have nearly all paid up their creditors, with the exception of two or three. I would like to insert many of the letters which I have received from the managers of the dairy factories, but space prohibits me. The universal cry is individualization, so that each Native can have some land to run his cows on. The Taranaki Maoris are by far the greatest suppliers, and lam sure if proper measures were adopted in regard to their lands the number would double itself within a year." The place you are describing in this report is Nuhaka?—Yes. 31. Where is that?—ln Hawke's Bay. 32. That was written in 1907, and you reported that there were eighty suppliers in Taranaki; approximate number of pounds of milk supplied per month to dairies, 1,964,170; and approximate number of cows, 4,145? —Yes. 33. Then your report goes on to say, " Coming further down the coast we enter the Taranaki district, which has been a most difficult one to deal with, because of its past history. It is needless for me to go into the past—the dead past must bury its dead. What is needed in this district is to encourage the young men to work whenever they break loose from the thraldom of the 'prophets.' I have conversed with many of these young men, and they have all declared their willingness to work if given an opportunity. The parents were followers of the two 'prophets,' consequently the children had to go with their parents; but since the parents died many of the children have lost the desire of spending their time and substance at the feet of the ' prophets.' When they turn home, however, "they find their lands have been leased, and some of them perpetrally. There shouh* be some remedy for this undesirable state of affairs. The old Act may have been beneficial when it was passed, but now the times have changed. Every Maori who has land should be given an opportunity of utilizing that land if he so desire. I am sure working the land would be more profitable to the Maori in every way, even if he did not make so very much out of it, than getting peppercorn rents, which he only squanders in gambling and riotous living. We want justice done in this district. At the present the Maori is only the nominal owner of his ancestral lands. He cannot occupy his own property without an occupation license, and at the end of some of the leases he cannot take back his land. By looking at the dairy list we find that there are double the number of milkers in this district than in any other; thus we must make provision for these men who are willing to become dairy farmers. time has passed for kid-glove business; we must do justice to the Maori and his wants. There is no use of beating about the bush if we are sincere in trying to prolong the existence of the race. We must do more than merely writing reports; we must look at the question in a just, and unbiassed way, carrying out every promise, settling the land question, as all the sanitary and useful reforms rest on the solution of this great problem. It is hoped that the present Native Land Commission, which is doing such good work, will inquire into the requirements of the Taranaki Maoris. Short leases to Europeans would benefit these Natives for the time being till Ie Whiti dies and all the Natives return to their own homes. Then we must encourage the Maori to work by seeing that he has sufficient land for dairying and other pursuits When we

G.—2.

107

M POMABE.J

give him every opportunity to better himself like the pakeha, 1 am sure the constant outbreaks of infectious diseases, the poverty, the misery, the insanitary conditions of the Maori home will disappear as the dew before the noonday sun." You wrote that before Te Whiti died? —Yes, that is so. 34. Have the predictions which you made in 1907 been fulfilled? —They have been more than fulfilled. 35. You mean that this forward movement which you predicted in 1907 has been greater that you thought it would have been? —The progress they have made in spite of the disabilities under which they labour is so great that it is far beyond what I ever anticipated. 36. Now, at the time you wrote that report, Dr. Pomare, was the union in existence? —It was not even thought of. 37. When was the union formed?—ln 1909- —about two years afterwards. 38. Was that before or after Te Whiti's death? —After. 39. I think you were one of the prime movers in starting the union? —I was. 40. What objects had you in view in starting the union? —The object was simply this: the people in the district were unsettled, their old advisers and kaumatuas had died, rough seas were besetting them on the one band; they knew it would be a retrograde step to go backwards , and on the other hand there was no encouragement held out to them to settle on their own lands, so their minds were very greatly perturbed. Meetings were being held by them to consider their state, and a change was taking place in the Maori mind for more progress. 41. You seized this opportunity to form a union? —I came in particularly at the time, because 1 was better educated than my fellows, to put them on a better footing to obtain more progress. 42. The Chairman.] To point out the way?— Yes, to point out the way to better progress. 43. Mr. Bell.] Was there any difficulty in forming the union? —There was some difficulty at the start. It was hard at the start to get them to grasp the alterations, because it was so foreign to what they had been accustomed to. They had really broken away from Te Whitism, but some were still Te Whitites and Tohuites, and those who have anything to do with the canine species know that it is hard to teach old dogs new tricks. 44. The Chairman.] It is hard to break old people away from old beliefs? —Yes, old traditions had to be broken down, and the new regime made plain to them, so that they would understand that it would be for their benefit. 45. Mr. Bell.] Once the union was on its feet, how did it fare then? —Once the union started it went on rapidly, until it impressed practically the majority of the Natives between Waitotara and the White Cliffs. 46. Now, you have been intimately associated with the Maoris, and especially with the Maoris in this district, since you returned to New Zealand ? —I have. 47. You have been in touch with them quite recently?—l have. 48. Do you know of any Maoris in this district who favour the lessees' claim to convert their leases into the 1892 leases?— Being one of the prime movers in the union, and having an intimate' knowledge of the Maoris and their desires, 1 can declare absolutely of my own personal knowledge that there has not been one single Maori in favour of the conversion of the leases to that of an everlasting character. 49. Now you have heard some of the witnesses say that one of the aims of the Maoris is to get these lands actually given back into their own hands? —Yes. 50. Is that correct? —Yes, it is correct. That is the ultimate aim of the Maori —that they should have their lands given back to them as it was originally intended. 51. The Chairman.] That means previous to any leases at all or subject to the leases of 1881?— Under the Bell-Fox Commission. 52. Mr. Bell.] That is their ultimate object, to get their lands back into their own hands? — Yes. 53. Do they understand that under these proceedings the only question is as to whether the lessees shall be allowed to convert into perpetual leases or whether the leases are to be put up so that the Maoris may have an opportunity of bidding for them ?—They understand thoroughly the conditions under which they are fighting now —that is, to object to these leases being converted into everlasting ones, and that the only chance they have of ever securing these lands is by the means of bidding at auction with the pakeha. 54. The Chairman.] Do they understand clearly, Dr. Pomare, that the only thing that this Commission can deal with at the present time is the question of the binding or not binding down of the lessees to their leases ? —They understand it perfectly. 55. That is to say, the question is, shall the lessees be bound down to the conditions of their leases or shall they not?— They understand that. 56. Mr. Bell.] Now, do they anticipate that getting the opportunity to bid will help their ultimate object of getting their lands back into their own hands? —They say that the only avenue by which they can ultimately get their lands back is by first demonstrating to the Government of this country that they are quite capable of farming these lands, and in order to do that they are willing and anxious to have the opportunity of bidding with the pakeha for their own lands, and then demonstrating to the Government that they are able to look after them, and then ultimately to get their permanent rights to their land. 57. The Chairman.] That is to say, they are prepared to rest their claims for further consideration on the manner in which they carry out the cultivation of their lands if they are now given back to them ?—Exactly. 58. Mr. Bell.] If these leases are allowed to be converted, the Maoris have got to surrender for ever any hope of getting these lands back :do they understand that?— They do, with a great deal of sorrow.

G.—2.

108

[m. pomabe.

59. Now, you have told us of the strides which have been made by this movement forward which you have observed : what do you think the effect on that movement will be if these 18,000 acres are allowed to come under the Act of 1892? —The progressive movement which is now in active life will be killed; progress will be stopped, all future hope will be killed, every possible ambition that may rise up in the Maori of improving himself will be paralysed, and you will put back the clock of Maori progress fifty years. 60. The Chairman.\ All these opportunities that the lessees have had to come in and perpetuate their leases —that is, 1892, 1893, 1895, and 1898 —have all been previous to the death of Tβ Whiti and Tohu I— Yes. 61. Now, at that time, I understand, the Maoris understood exactly what was being done when these leases were given in perpetuity to the pakeha? —There were then a good many of them. There were some who did not brood over it, but they objected, and they sent petitions to Parliament, but the petitions were never heard. 62. Mr. Bell.] Do you remember when the first petition that you had anything to do with went to Wellington ?—Yes, soon after the union was formed we went down to Wellington, about 1909. I was there, and about seventy or more of my people went down with me. Kahu Pukoro was president. On that occasion we saw the Hon. James Carroll, the Public Trustee (Mr. Poynton), and Mr. Fisher, 63. What took place at that deputation?—We went to interview the Hon. James Carroll about our grievances and desires, and he met us in the Parliamentary Buildings with the gentlemen I have already mentioned, and there our old man, Kahu Pukoro, made an opening speech. In his speech he said figuratively that he had come down to have his tears wiped away, and then said to Sir James, " My son," still in the figurative, " Pomare will read to you our desires." 64. This is what you read : "To Sir Joseph Ward, Prime Minister of the Dominion of New Zealand. We, the representatives of the united tribes of Ngatiruanui, Ngarauru, Taranaki, Ngatimaru, and Te Atiawa, living between Waitotara and the White Cliffs, ask you, Sir Joseph and Parliament, to repeal the West Coast Settlement Keserves Act of 1892 and its amendments, and to place our lands under the provisions of the Crown grants, because the said Act is a violation of the Treaty of Waitangi, a violation of the Constitution Act of 1852, a violation of Sir George's Grey's solemn Proclamations of the 17th December, 1864, and the 2nd September, 1865, and a tranrpling under foot of the Crown grants of Her late Majesty Queen Victoria. Further, that iniquitous and cruel Act vested our lands in the Public Trustee for ever as if he were the absolute owner thereof in spite of the Crown grants solemnly given to us by Her late Majesty. It empowered the Public Trustee to arbitrarily lease our lands for all time, regardless of whether we have sufficient for our maintenance or not. It prevented the individualization of our lands, thus encouraging communism, killing all incentive to work, forming a pretext for the Public Trustee to take our lands and lease the same for ever. It conferred powers upon the Public Trustee, placing that official in the position of a tyrant, instead of being a loving father looking after the interests and welfare of us, his children, by making adequate provisions for our immediate needs as well as our future requirements. And now we pray that no further leasing of our lands be continued by tne Public Trustee, and that our lands now falling due be returned to us, and that you, Sir Joseph, and the Ministers of your Cabinet, will seek some road by which our lands leased by the Public Trustee for all time be returned to us, as we realize that in order to avert extinction we must become active farmers, and not mere rent-receivers. And, furthermore, there are a large number of us belonging to the above-mentioned tribes who were left out of the Crown grants, and are now landless : we ask that provision be also made for them." That was just after the formation of the union, and that set forth what the union at that time desired? —Yes, that is so. 65. In what year was that?— About 1909. 66. What did Sir James Carroll say?— Sir James had a map on the wall dotted with yellow spots, and those yellow spots represented the 18,000 acres. 67. That was the 1881 leased lands?— Yes, and, dramatically drawing himself up, he pointed to the map and said to Kahu Pukoro, to his people, and to us all: " Kahu Pukoro, go home; I will wipe away your tears with 18,000 acres." That is what he said, and we came home. 68. What was the next time that this matter was discussed with Sir James Carroll? —Subsequently, at this meeting, he said, " I will come up and visit you at your own courtyard," and he came to the courtyard, which was at Te Aroha, near Manaia, and I was present. Our tribes gathered from near and far in great numbers and they met him, and there again he reiterated his promise of the 18,000 acres. That was the second meeting. 69. Did he say anything on that occasion as to whether the lands were to be given back, or whether it was merely to be a question of competing for the leases?—He did say something about an agitation that would probably, take place in the minds of the lessees, and he advised us to be active. He said probably the lessees would object, and that we were to be prepared for all emergencies. 70. Was the matter ever discussed again with Sir James Carroll? —Yes, a year after that. The deputation was in 1909, and Sir James Carroll came up in 1910, and the year after that, 1911, we again went down to Wellington, because we had heard that the lessees had formed a league, and were having meetings, that they were prepared with a petition to Parliament, and we went down to see what they were doing, and also to get what Sir James Carroll had promised us; and this time we not only saw Sir James Carroll, but also saw Sir Joseph Ward. 71. What did they say?— They both said it was all right, and they had a Bill prepared. The Bill was given to us to discuss, and the result of our discussions and cogitations was that we saw the Bill would be detrimental to us, and we said we did not want the Bill. Then Sir James said, "Well, supposing you draw up a Bill," and I, with the committee of the union, gat down for five days and five nights, and drew up a Bill, and then we met Sir James again.

M. POMABE.j

109

G.—2.

72. I think this is the draft of the Natives' Bill?— Yes. [Produced.] 73. What happened when you handed this draft Bill to Sir James Carroll? —Sir James said it was beautiful. 74. Was that an indication that it was going to be introduced by the Government?—lt was said in such a way that he led us to believe that it would be introduced as a Government Bill. 75. 1 think that is the last you have heard of that Bill? —Like all things from that direction; it is taihoa. 76. The Chairman.] Do you mean from that direction or in that direction?— Both. 77. Mr. Bell.] Now, you have been in Court during the giving of the Maori evidence?— Yes, 1 have. 78. You have told us that you know the Maoris in the Taranaki District thoroughly?—l do. 79. Does that evidence exhaust the witnesses on those points or is it merely representative? —Well, 1 think we could get another hundred if you want them. 80. Is the desire to work which they have expressed a general one? —It is general through and through. 81. The Chairman.] I suppose you have a few wasters somewhere?—We have absolutely, the same as the pakeha. There are some Maoris who are, of course, not able to work—they are lazy; and I have seen some pakehas in the same condition. 82. Mr. Bell.] You have heard some of those witnesses giving evidence who have succeeded in financing the purchase of their stock by giving to auctioneers an order for half their milk cheques ? —Yes. 83. You have heard some of them say they have been able to get assistance, and that they know friends who would be glad to do it if they could only find some kind pakehas to make the necessary advances?— That is so. 84. Have you come to any conclusion as to why there is a difficulty in finding kind pakehas to make_ these advances in a great number of cases?— Well, the Maori in the first instance has no security. The occupation license is not looked upon by the pakeha as any security whatever. It is not worth the paper it is written on as a security. The Maori cannot borrow on his lease, because that is no good. The Maori may be a good mark, but the difficulties of finding out whether he is a good mark bars the pakeha from advancing. 85. You mean the pakeha will not take the trouble to look into his affairs, and you think many good Maori marks are unable to get advances? —Exactly. 86. Now, is that the usual idea —that the salvation of the Maori lies in work from your medical point of view? —Well, from all points acfivity is life; without activity there is no life. 87. Is that the point of view taken by the union? —Yes, that is the point of view taken by the union, and expressed in their Bill, and even in their deputation. 88. What about the education of the Maori children: has that advanced in recent years?— A remarkable advance has been made in the matter of education. In my time you could count on the fingers of your two hands the number of Maori children going to school, but now the schools are getting so filled that we have Education Committees passing resolutions to ask their Boards to prohibit the Maori children from going to pakeha schools, and to have special schools built for the Maoris. 89. The Chairman.] Do you mean an Education Board has ever said that? —A School Committee has recommended a Board to bar Maori children going to pakeha schools. 90. Mr. Bell.] They want the school for themselves? —Yes. 91. That Committee recommended the erection of a separate school?— Yes that is so 92. The Chairman.] Was that at the request of the Maoris?—No, at the request of the pakehas 93. To keep the Maoris out of the pakeha schools? —Yes, that is so. 94. Which School Committee was that?— The Okaiawa School Committee. To show further the advancement of the Maoris in the matter of education, they are not only sending their children to schools, but some of them have actually built school buildings in order to have their children taught. Because of the different enactments which have been passed concerning our lands one Maori offered his land for a school-site, and they would not accept it because it was under the West Coast Settlement Reserves Act, or something like that. 95. Mr. Bell.] A Maori in this district offered land for a school? Yes. 96. AVho do you mean when you say they would not accept it?— The Public Trustee could not allow them, ihe Maori could not be allowed to do so, because the laws which are in existence prevented him giving his land for a school-site. _ 97. You were recently before the Maori electors : can you tell us anything about the Maori voting which gives you an idea of the advance of the Maori ?—There was 'a time when the Maoris in this district would not vote, or the majority of them, and any of the election returns of past years will show that; but in the last election I think there were over 1,000 votes recorded in this district. I know I got 800 of them. 98. And you repeat that if the lessees' claims are given effect to there is a danger of this forward movement being given a set-back?—lt would not only be a great setting-back to this forward movement, but I repeat it will kill all incentive to work, paralyse all ambition and reduce every one to a position of sycophancy. A Native waiting for rent-day to come along, sitting on the Public Trustee s doorstep spitting into the street waiting for his paltry rent to be handed to him—that would be the position of the Maoris of this district if that were allowed to take place 99 .Cross-examined by Mr. Welsh.] I would like to clear the.ground of one little doubt in my mind Ido not think you suggest that there were any settlers in this district who refused the Yaw a SCh ° Ol " Slte beCaUSe ° f the Ma °ris?-No, it could not be done because of 100. In reference to this Okaiawa School Committee, was not the position this- The suggestion was not to bar the Natives from their schools, but to erect a separate building for them? —That was tantamount to barring them. s

G.—2.

[m. pomabe.

101. Did some of the Natives desire that themselves? —No. 102. Are you sure? —I go amongst them, and 1 never heard of a complaint. 103. Now, you say a Bill that had been prepared on behalf of the Europeans or that had been prepared by Cabinet was brought down by the Premier and the Native Minister? —1 did not say that. 104. Who prepared the Bill you saw? —I did not say who prepared that. 1 said that Sir James Carroll handed a Bill to us. 105. Did he tell you who prepared that Bill?—No, he did uot say anything about the preparation of it. He said, " There is a Bill, look at it, cogitate over it " ; and we did. 106. Was it suggested to you that that Bill, was the echo of the lessees' petition, or was it suggested to you that that was the Government measure as the settlement of the difficulty? —There were no suggestions made; there was the Bill itself. 107. Did you see the memorandum drawn by the Public Trustee for the Lands Committee that has been referred to during these proceedings?—No, I have never seen it. 108. Was that Bill that was shown to you by the Native Minister based upon the Public Trustee's memorandum?—l cannot answer that, because I never saw the memorandum. 109. I understand that in your Bill, in effect, the Natives were asking to have the lands returned to them on the expiry of the leases; am 1 correct? —Yes. 110. That the lands should not be put up to auction again?—Well, it would be obviously that, would it not? 111. And that the lessee should be paid compensation by the country?—Oh, no, not at all. 112. No compensation? —He should be paid compensation for his improvements, but it never said anything about the country. 113. Compensation to the extent of £5 an acre, 1 suppose?— Exactly. 114. Who was that to be paid by? —By the incoming lessee. 115. And under your Bill were those lands to be administered by the Public Trustee or by the Natives themselves ? —Well, they wanted absolute titles to that land, so that they could have it. That was the ultimate aim. That is what they wanted then —what they were asking for at that time. 116. And am I correct in saying that under the Bill no steps were to be taken until the leases had been determined? —When they fell due. The Chairman: You are talking about this proposed Bill. 117. Mr. Welsh.] Yes. (To witness) : You understood clearly from the Native Minister that he accepted that measure —your draft measure? —He said " Pairawatu," which means " excellent," and the inference is that it would be adopted by him, as it was so excellent. 118. That was the impression he gave you? —Yes. 119. And you went home satisfied?— Yes. 120. And your people went home satisfied? —Exactly. 121. Now, in all seriousness—and I give you the fullest credit for all you have said and what you have done for your race —your desire is to better your fellow? —Thank you. 122. That is so? —Yes. 123. That is in your mind and in your heart?— Yes. 124. Now, the Native has undoubtedly shown a very considerable adaptability to conform to the new conditions? —That is so. 125. There are now new conditions all along this coast at present, such as social conditions, not only obtaining to the Native by to the European?— Yes, I quite agree with you. 126. And you recognize, I presume, travelling through the district, that the conditions of farming are changing? —That is so. 127. The old type of farmer is going out?— That is so. 128. And the more scientific man is coming in?— That is so. 129. And you have recognized that difficulty amongst others for your race?— Absolutely. 130. You have heard some of the witnesses speaking of the necessity for closer farming on all these dairy lands? —Yes. 131. Do you agree with their statement that closer farming is necessary?— What do you mean by closer farming? 132. The farm that at one j.ime might have consisted of a couple of hundred acres must not be subdivided into four farms of 50 acres —there must be more paddocking, the stock must be kept in smaller areas, the lands must be manured in the proper season, and the grass must not be allowed to waste? —Yes. 133. Ensilage must be got in at the proper time; that in the winter the stock must be properly housed, and that special feed must be grown along the coast, and so on? —Yes. 134. That is what we call closer and scientific farming? —Now I understand it. 135. The farmer tells us that to make the dairy-farm succeed it must be closely and scientifically farmed ?—Yes. 136. Do you agree with my statement?— Yes, I suppose so. I am not an expert in dairy farming, but if scientists say it is so 1 accept that. 137. As you motor throtigh the coast you can see where the old farms have been split up into smaller areas day by day? —Yes. 138. We are also told by the farmer that a better breed of stock is required?— That is so. 139. More expensive cows? —Exactly. 140. Do you think the Native in his present condition is capable of all that —is ready for it? Do you think he is educated up to it?—Do you mean to say that because he is not, you are going to take away his land? 141. I mean the question in exactly the way I have put it to you. Heaven forbid that I should be fool enough to argue that because the Native is not ready that you should give away

110

M. POMABE.]

111

G.—2.

his birthright. Do you think the Native, in his present condition, is educated up to that stage necessary in the modern dairy-farmer? —Well, you admit that all the pakefras are not up to it -themselves, and so I suppose the Maoris will not all be up to it; but with a little education they will have the same opportunity and chances of improving as the pakeha. 142". Do you think any of them are?— Yes, numbers of them are in this district. 143. Now, you know yourself the history of these occupation licenses? —Yes. 144. Better than I do? —I am not sure about that; you are a lawyer, and I am not. 145. Is that the answer to my question?— You ought to know more about them than I do. 146. The history of the occupation licenses —not the leases? —That is part of the law. 147. Has that policy of the occupation license been successful with the Native?—No, the occupation license is not a success with the Maoris, and 1 will tell why why : because it does not give the Maori his land —he is only on that land on sufferance. There is no security, and he may as well be without it. 148. It is like the old Irish tenure?— Just so. 149. And the area of that land is something like 40,000 acres? Mr. Zachariah: There are 30,000 and 20,000 acres, which is cut up and practically ready. 150. Mr. Welsh. So that we have something between 40,000 and 50,000 acres, portion of which is under occupation licenses. The bulk of it is held under licenses, and the rest is ready to occupy?— Yes. 151. Now, what has the Maori done with that land that he has under occupation, has he used it himself?—He is using it. 152. Is he using it fairly? —Certainly. 153. For his own benefit?— For his benefit certainly; he is not doing it for anybody else's. 154. Are you satisfied with the way he is using it? —No, because the conditions are such that I am not satisfied. 155. Tell me the way he is using it?—l am not satisfied with the way he is using it. It is the tenure he has got that forces him to use it in the way he does. 156. How does the tenure that he has force him to use the land in a way you disapprove of?—ln this box you cross-examine a Maori who leased land to the pakeha, and because the Maori leased that land to the pakeha it was illegal; but when the pakeha lessee re-leases it to the Maori it is not illegal. Why should it be made illegal in the one case and not in the other? 157. I entirely recognize the fallacy of that tenure?— That ought to be improved. 158. The Maori is not allowed by law to make use of the land lie has in any way save to occupy it? —He has to occupy it, and he is hampered in every direction. 159. So that if he does want to start dairy-farming, for instance, he has no tenure, and he may be turned out at any moment? —Yes, and he cannot go to the Advances to Settlers' Department, although he is paying taxes. 160. Considering the tenure and its limitations, are you satisfied with the way the Native is farming his land? —Well, he could not do anything else. 161. Are you satisfied with their subletting these lands to the people whom they do sublet to?— The Maori cannot do anything else if lie has an occupation license. The Advances to Settlers Department bar him; he cannot borrow from the Public I'rustee, who is supposed to look after him, and he is expected to go and knock down the bush with his hands tied How can he do it ? 162. Do you think the same argument applies to the men in occupation of these open lands for years past, who still prefer to sublet to Europeans rather than work the lands themselves?— Some of that land out in the open would be covered with gorse. 163. What about the Hawera lands, are they used by the Natives or sublet to Europeans?— Some of them are occupied by Maoris. A lot are milking cows. 164. But the bulk of the lands under occupation license round Hawera?—Perhaps you are m a better position to reply to that than I am. You know perhaps what there are but I do not. Ido not know the number of Natives who are leasing their lands to pakehas. _ 165. It will interest you if you make inquiries?—l prefer to leave it to you I prefer to wait till the tenure is a little better. " 166. I understand that under the present conditions you recognize that these 1881 leases will have to run out before they can--be dealt with?—We cannot resume possession of them until they run out. 167. You recognize that? —Yes, certainly; that is the law. 168. lam asking for the desire or wish of your union 7—We do not want to dispossess the pakehas illegally or wrongfully. • + J 69 t T T- f CO - n i ze that * ese leases will hay « to run out before these lands are further dealt witn .' —in wnicn way I 170 Either in the way you desire or the way we desire: in any case, the leases will have to run out?—We can do what we like before those leases run out. 171. In dealing with the lands? —On paper. 172. lam speaking now of the lands under the Act of 1881 ? Exactly «, i l73 ' D i° '^Y 1^ 1 aS / member of Parliament and as a representative of your union that he eases should be a lowed to run out their due term, so that the land should be dealt with and the leases determined J-We are quite prepared, I as a member of the union and as a member of the te™^i v in connection with those leases for the end of the term—until 174. That is the end of the present term?— Yes. 175, What do you ask for then?— That is our business.

112

[m. pomace.

G.—2.

176. I want to know. As an illustration we will assume that a lease has twelve months to run before its term is up. What do you ask should happen to that land then? —According to the terms of the Commission, we want to have the same opportunity as the pakeha to go and bid for it in the market. 17-7. You want that lease to be put up to auction ?—Oh, decidedly; but that is only a means to an end so far as we are concerned. 178. You recognize that the lands will have to be put up to auction in terms of the lease? — That is the law. 179. And you recognize that is so? —Yes, that is so. 180. And that the bargain of the lease should be adhered to? —Till the end of the term. 181. I want to draw your attention to this: that upon that new lease running out its term it will in turn have to be treated in exactly the same way?—lt will have to be put up to public auction again. 182. For the twenty-one years?— Not at all. 183. You have to deal with the lease when it expires at the end of twelve months. That lease will be put up at the end of twelve months for a further term of twenty-one years? —Yes. 184. And again at the end of that twenty-one years it will have to be put up again to auction? —I do not know. 185. That is the law? —That is what the law says now. We do not know what the law will say twenty-one years hence. m 185 a. It is twelve months hence. In twelve months hence this lease falls in, and it has to be put up to action again ?—Yes. 186. When it is put up to auction it has to be put up on exactly the same terms as the present lease, and one of the terms of the present lease is that at the end of twenty-one years it must be again put tip ? —Yes. 187. Does that satisfy your union or your claims? —As a means to an end, yes. 188. You would have the new lease as a means to an end? —Quite so. 189. Now, you think, no doubt, with me that that lease is not a desirable lease in the interests of the Maori, or that any lessee should take a lease on that tenure under the Act of 1881 ? Do you agree with that ?—We have seen what that has done already. 190. Do you think it is a desirable tenure?—No, decidedly not, when you will pass Acts and convert them into everlasting leases, decidedly not. 191. I say, in the interests of good farming, is such a tenure desirable at all? —Why not? 192. I will tell you why not: you have not considered that apparently?— Yes, I have; but I am asking you why not. 193. Assume for the present purposes that you are a witness in the witness-box, will you answer my question? —From the Maori standpoint it is unsatisfactory for various reasons, and one of the principal reasons is that he wants that land himself to work now, and he is barred from getting it without going to auction, owing to this unhappy state of affairs. 194. It is a bad tenure to begin with? —From the Maori owners' standpoint. I am not saying anything about the lessees. 195. He will take care of himself?— You bet he does. 196. What is your next reason from the owners standpoint? I will give you my reason, and see if you agree with it. It appeals to me as an absurd tenure, in these days of close farming, to say that a man is to pay the best improved rent on his place, and in the same breath to say that he is only to be paid £5 for his improvements : do you agree with that?—No, I do not. 197. You think that is a good form of lease?— That is the bargain the lessees made when they took up the land, and they ought to stick to it. 198. I am not speaking with reference to that —I am speaking of whether the lease is a desirable lease in the interests of the owners. Is that the form of lease you would offer to an owner ?— The form of the lease we first offered to the pakeha in these cases was for twenty-one years, because the pakeha was taking it up at a peppercorn rental, and at the end of the term the Maori was to get it back with all the improvements; that was the original bargain. 199. In 1881 we paid 5 per cent, on the full improved value: do you call that a peppercorn rental? —I do not call this the peppercorn rental; I call the peppercorn rental the first leases— before 1881. The first leases thej>akeha had they got with the understanding that the improvements were all to go to the Maori. 200. Let us see where you are wing to land yourself in your proposals relative to dealing with this land. We will take our typical lease that will expire in twelve months' time. Who shall have the right to bid for that lease under your proposals?— Under what proposals of mine? 201. You say you wish the Native to have the right to come in the same as the European and take this land? —Yes, decidedly. 202. Well, in twelve months' time who shall have the right to bid at auction —all the Natives, the Europeans, and every one?—l think that is quite fair. Every one who wants to bid. 203. Who do you think should have the right to bid?— The right is not reserved to any particular people or party or individual —that is the law. 204. T have to eliminate those whom you say the right is not meant for, and then draw conclusions as to whom it is for. Siipposing you endeavour to answer the question this time. Whom do you propose should have the right to bid at auction : the Europeans and the Maoris?— It is open to eve^body. 205. And that is what you still ask for? —No, I never said that. I said that the Maori owner should be given the opportunity of bidding for those lands, so that when he could get on to them he could farm them. 206. Who do you mean by the Maori owner?—l mean the Maori owner.

G.-2.

M. POMARE.

207. Owner of what? —Owner of the land in question. 208. Of the special lease in question? —Of those lands on the West Coast209. I am trying to take one lease at a time. I suggest this one lease is put up, shall all the Natives have the right to go in and bid, or shall only a special class of Natives have the right? —The law does not prevent anybody from bidding. 210. Then you say the 5,000 Natives should have the right to come in and bid at this auction? —According to the law, they have the right. 211. And you are prepared to accept that? —That is our business. 212. I asked you are you prepared to accept that? —That is part of our business, to find out who would be suitable individuals to bid. 213. I am anxious to find out; it concerns not only the Maori owner but the State. I will ask you again to answer the question? —The proper individuals who can work that land —that is our claim. 214. Who do you mean by "proper individuals"? —Men who can farm it properly. 215. Who is going to decide as to the men who can farm it properly? —Who is going to decide? 216. I will ask you again to try and answer it?— Whom we might think is a proper and fit individual, you might not think is fit. 217. I "can tell you ?—Yes, you would say the lessee. I have already said that anybody is there to go and bid. 218. Not only the owner ? —Not only the owner ; he is not limited. 219. Now, there are 5,000 Natives on the coast, for the sake of argument?— Yes. 220. And a good number of these lessees on the coast? —Yes. 221. And you say the door should be wide open for them to go and bid at this auction? — That is what the law says. 222. How is the Government or the private individual or the lending Department going to finance the successful tenant? You cannot suggest anything? —We have our own ideas. 223. I want to know them : tell me what your idea is?—l am not going to suggest to their Worships what they should do. 224. Because you cannot or because you will not? —I do not know whether it is material. 225. I am asking the questions at present, and until his Worship says that my question is not a right one I am entitled to an answer?— Ask it again. 226. What is your suggestion in regard to giving financial assistance to the successful tenant? —I say the State ought to come to the aid of the Maori. 227. And lend him money, on what security? —The land is there. 228. How can the State lend money to a leaseholder on somebody else's land?—l cannot understand what j-ou are driving at. 229. This successful tenant who has succeeded in obtaining his lease is a leaseholder : do you say the State will lend money on this leasehold? —Has it not done it to the pakeha? 230. Well, has it? —It has lent it on his improvements. 231. Do you grasp this : that the successful tenderer will have no goodwill to offer as security. The successful lessee will be paying at the lowest basis 5 per cent, not on the unimproved value, but on the full improved value, less £5 per acre that he has to pay in cash?— Well? 232. What Government that you can conceive of, even if a change of Government, could lend mone}? on such a tenure? Can you suggest any?— Decidedly not, and that is why we say this is a means to an end. 233. But you are going to give the wretched leaseholder a tenure on which he cannot borrow a penny. What are you going to do with the Maori when you get him there? We all admire your Utopian idea, but do not put the Maori there unless you are going to keep him there?— That is what we want the State to finance him for. 234. What will you finance him on?— The Advances to Settlers Department has been open to the pakeha for but advances nothing to the Maoris. 235. The Department cannot advance except on improvements ?—This is Maori land, and it has improvements. 236. You are doing the rest of your race a grave injustice if you attempt of the kind, not to the Public Trustee, and not to these lessees, but to the rest of the owners. That land, on your own showing, is vested in the whole of the tribes. Now, Mr. Zachariah will show that in some cases the individuals amount to hundreds in each lease. If there are three hundred men interested in a lease, how can you pick out one and say you can borrow money on the land belonging to the other men ?—They could combine. 237. Supposing there are three hundred, you say they could combine together?— There is nothing to prevent them. 238. That is your idea of finance? —Certainly. 239. Mr. Bell.] Has it occurred to you how the pakeha would finance if he took up these lands? —Yes. 240. Let me suggest to you how that finance would be arranged. First, he has got to pay £5 an acre for his improvements?— Yes. 241. And the improvements will have to be paid for in cash? —Yes. 242. He has got to finance to pay for those improvements. He can go to the Government Advances to Settlers Department for some part, at any rate, of that £5? —Yes. 243. That helps him along?— Yes. 244. That is open to the pakeha but not open to the Maori ?—Yes. 245. The other thing which the lessee has to Buy is stock? —Yes, exactly.

15— G. 2.

113

G.--2.

,11. POMABB.

246. I suppose you know that the pakeha goes to the auctioneer when he wants to buy stock if he has got land, and he gets the whole thing financed, and pays for it out of his milk cheque? — —Exactly. 247. So that almost ever}' penny that the pakeha coming in and taking up one of these leases has got to put into the land can be financed?— Yes. 248. And is financed at the present moment for the pakeha?—Certainly. 249. The lands themselves have to be pledged in order to finance the pakeha? —Exactly. 250. The lenders are safe? —Yes. 251. And if the same opportunities were open to the Maoris the lenders would be equally safe? —That is so. I said to Mr. Welsh, " Give us the same opportunities as the pakeha," and he replies, " High finance," with a little sarcasm put into it. 252. Mr. Welsh put it to you that the farmers tell us that it will be necessary in the case of 200-acre farms to cut them up into 50-acre farms. Have you in the course of your travels round the West Coast found any inclination on the part of the lessees to restrict themselves to 50-acre farms? —Not a bit. They are not only leasing what they can get hold of, but they are leasing what Mr. Welsh calls illegally from the Maoris. 253. Mr. Welsh said that the tenure was an undesirable one from the lessees' point of view? —Yes. 254. Do you know that quite recently Mr. Hastie renewed his twenty-one years' lease? —Yes, exactly, with the greatest of ease, and no opposition. 255. A man who had had experience of it was prepared to go in again?— Certainly, a terrible lease. 256. Mr. Welsh dealt with the occupation licenses of land round Hawera —open lands which have been leased to the pakeha. I suppose you know that where the Maori has open lands, even supposing those lands are fenced and grassed, it is still necessary to have some capital if the lands are going to be worke(| properly?— Exactly. 257. And is it a fact that it is difficult for the Maori to get that assistance under the existing conditions ? — lt is. 258. Now, with reference to putting the leases up to auction again at the end of the next period, Mr. Welsh asked you whether you were satisfied to accept that. You realize, I suppose, that if the owners on the one hand and the tenant on the other hand agree to alter the terms of the lease there is no breaking of a bargain, so that it is not put up to auction again at the end of the term?— Certainly, there is no breaking of any bargain. 259. I understand that apart from the question of finance, which really does not concern the lessees, the only question between the Maoris nnrl the lessees is not whether you should be allowed to break your bargain, but whether the pakeha should be allowed to break his? —Exactly, that is the position. 260. The Maori union realizes that it ought not to ask to terminate the pakeha's leases before they run out —it does not ask to depart one hair's breadth from the bargain made between the Maori .and the pakeha?—That is the position—that is exactly what we understand. 261. The. You are asking- for nothing except that these leases should be carried out according to their conditions? —Yes, exactly. The Commission adjourned till Tuesday, 4th June, 1912.

Hawera, Tubsdat, 4th June, 1912. Robert Tahupotiki Haddon sworn and examined. (No. 50.) 1. Mr. Ell.'] You are a clergyman? —Yes. 2. Before you became a clergyman I think you always lived in this part of the world?—l have been for twenty-four years in Taranaki. 3. And I think at one stage of your career you were at Parihaka? —Yes. 4. What position did you hold at Parihaka? —I was put up by Tohu as one of his righthand men in one of his eatinghouses to entertain Europeans when on their visits to Parihaka. When Europeans visited Parihaka I was there to speak to them and to entertain them. 5. When did you leave Parihaka to study for the Church? —In 1891 I left Parihaka. 6. I want you to compare {he state of the Natives in the Parihaka days with their state to-day?— There is no comparison between the Native of the Parihaka days and the Native of to-day. The Natives of to-day have made a wide margin as compared with the Natives in the Parihaka days. 7. How do you mean, a "wide margin "1 —They have made wonderful progress in regard to future things-—in looking towards the future. In. the teaching of the Parihaka days very little was mentioned of the future, and that is why I broke away from it. 8. So far as industry and energy is concerned, have they made any progress since the Parihaka days?— Very much. Their drinking habits have decreased to a large extent, and they have turned wonderfully to the improving , of their homes round about the Hawera district. I was only counting up the other day—there are no less than thirty-nine weatherboard houses or cottages, from four to seven rooms, built within the last three or four years. Some are nicely furnished and some have pianos in them. 9. The Natives up till now have not had any great opportunity of farming because the occupation license was not a permanent tenure. Having regard to the fact that most of them have not had a proner opportunity, what have you to say in reference to them as to their capabilities as farmers?— They have done very well under the circumstances. They have endeavoured to help themselves in the best wav they could; they have been working for Europeans and keeping their money, and also farming their own occupation reserves,

114

B. T. HADDON.]

G.—2.

10. We have had a good deal of evidence from Natives who have managed to get a start at farming, and who have been quite successful. Are those isolated cases, or have most of the Natives who have managed to get a start succeeded? —In my work visiting the settlements 1 have found that the Maoris have made a wonderful effort to help themselves in regard to utilizing their lands. Of course, you will remember that this has only come about in the last three or tour years. Before that they were very much handicapped, and were guided by the teaching of Te Whiti and Tohu, who bound their hands to prevent industry. It is not right to talk of those who have gone before, but I know that before Charlie Bayley died he held a great influence over the Maoris, and most of the Maoris were persuaded by him to let their lands to Europeans. I know that for a fact. 11. So that it was not all Te Whiti and Tohu?—No. 12. So far as religion is concerned, how are the Maoris progressing?— When I came on the coast about twelve years ago to start the work of the Gospel among the Maoris, there were several endeavoured to throw me out of the meetinghouse, but since Te Whiti and Tohu have gone in one settlement on a Sunday you will see a congregation of two hundred. At Parihaka they also hold services, and also in some of their homes. 13. Where was it you had the congregation of two hundred?—At Kitimarae; and there are also evening services at Taiporohenui. 14. I think you have been acting with Dr. Pomare in trying to organize the Natives and to get them to realize their responsibilities? —Yes. I have been endeavouring since I have been in the ministry in my work amongst the Maoris. lam related to nearly all the tribes in Taranaki, and therefore I have an opportunity of visiting them in their homes, and my endeavour is to see that they take up the Gospel. I have gone to the teachers of the European schools endeavouring to get the Native children into the schools. I have held meetings up and down the coast to endeavour to get the Maori children to school. At Okaiawa I got twenty-eight, Normanby nineteen, Fraser Road twenty, Meremere nine, and also at Opunake and other districts. Last year some children passed out of the schools and were sent to Three Kings College and Te Aute College, and last March there were twenty-one Maori children at Three Kings College from Taranaki. 15. You have heard Dr. Pomare's evidence, and you heard him say what took place at the various interviews with Sir James Carroll? —Yes. 16. Will you tell us your version of the interviews from the beginning? —In 1909 a conference was held at Taiporohenui by the Maoris from Waitotara to the White Cliffs. I was present at the meeting, and it was there the tribes decided to form a union or association. Wiremu Hipango was elected chairman, and it was decided by the conference that Kahu Pukoro should be appointed president of the union. They spoke of both Dr. Pomare and myself being president, but we thought it would be better to have an elder in the position, and so Kahu Pukoro was appointed. About six weeks later it was decided that we should go as a deputation to Wellington, and seventy-two representatives of the Natives from the White Cliffs to Waitotara went to Wellington, and I accompanied them. We took up our quarters in Sydney Street, and after a rest for a day or two we went as a body to the Parliamentary Buildings. There we met Sir James Carroll, Mr. Poynton, the Public Trustee; and, I think, Mr. Fisher, Under-Secretary, and Mr. Massey, leader of the Opposition, were present. It was there that Kahu Pukoro greeted Sir James Carroll, and then said, " I am here with my people to ask you to wipe away my tears —the tears that have been flowing since the war-days and up till now." He then called upon Dr. Pomare to read a statement from the deputation. After Dr. Pomare had read it Mr. Carroll rose. There was a map on the wall, and Mr. Carroll pointed to it and said, " Kahu Pukoro, this is what I have got to wipe away your tears. Those spotted marks on the map represent the 18,000 acres of land under the 1881 Act. Those I will give into your hands, so you can go home with your tribe and be at peace in your mind. Call a meeting when you get back and I will come up and address you on your own courtyard." At this we got up and saluted him. Two or three days later we went home and called a meeting at Okaiawa, and over £300 was collected for that meeting. Mr. Carroll was notified of the date, and he and a number of others belonging to his party came to our courtyard. On his arrival, according to Maori etiquette, we gave him a mihi, and the next day the courtyard was open and Kahu Pukoro welcomed him. Mr. Carroll got up and greeted the people and said, " I am here, and I am glad that you have got this meeting up for the purpose of calling me to greet you. Kahu Pukoro came to Wellington and I promised to give him the 18,000 acres, and I am here now to confirm that promise to the tribe." The people wanted to know what would be the position of the Public Trustee when the 18,000 acres were returned, and Mr. Carroll said, "That is nothing; I can put hirr , between my finger and thumb and snap him; that is nothing." He meant he could squeeze the Public Trustee up between his hands, and that the Public Trustee would no more reign over the 18,000 acres that he had promised to return to the Maoris. I listened attentively to his speech. He also spoke of going to the market. He said, "Of course, there is one thing :if you like you can go to the market and bid for your lands; it is like taking the money out of one pocket and putting it into the other." He then went away with his people. Later the same deputation went back to Wellington again—in 1909-10. This time it was at the opening of Parliament, and we wanted to hear Mr. Carroll speak in the House of Parliament about handing over absolutely that 18,000 acres to the Maoris by the voice of Parliament, but he did not come off. He then said to Kahu Pukoro, " You can go back and call a meeting at Parihaka and I will come and see you, as I want to see the descendants of T'e W T hiti and Tohu. We went back to Parihaka, and I gathered the peonle together and notified Mr. Carroll, and he came. Before we came back to Parihaka, and while we were in Wellington, Mr. Carroll had prepared a Bill which he handed over to us. Wβ read the Bill, arid found that it did not suit us. We

115

G.—2.

116

[b. t. haddon.

informed him so, and he said, " Well, you can draw up one yourselves." A committee was set up of Dr. Pomare, Mr. Daman, Hikaka, and myself, and we sat for five days in the Parliamentary Buildings drawing up this Bill, which we handed to Mr. Carroll. The body of the Natives met him in the Parliamentary Buildings and the Bill was read to him. He listened attentively, and I watched him carefully, and after our Bill was read he got up, greeted us, and told us to be strong. Holding the Bill in his hand he said, " Now lam right; you have given me a weapon to fight with, and I will fight with this weapon in the House " ; and then he chanted a very ancient Maori incantation, and we joined in with him and danced a haka according to Maori custom, which was a haka of victory. Mr. Carroll greeted us, and then we left the building and went home. We then called the meeting at Parihaka which I referred to; 1 held the services in the meetinghouses, and Mr. Carroll arrived with his party. 17. This is the Bill you referred to [produced]? —Yes, that is the Bill. [Bill put in, Exhibit J.] Mr. Fisher was present with Mr. Carroll, and also Mr. J. B. Jack, agent for the Public Trustee, and several other Maoris who came with Mr. Carroll. I held the service on Te Whiti's courtyard, opening the meeting with a hymn, reading portion of the Scripture and a prayer. It was on open-air service, and I stood beside Te Whiti's monument. Mr. Carroll greeted the children of Te Whiti and Tohu in Maori custom, and then promised that he was there to portion out some 600 acres from the Parihaka Block. That was to be a gift to the Maoris who were landless at Parihaka, and who came from other tribes to support Te Whiti and Tohu. This was agreed to by Te Whiti's prominent offsprings, and the promise then was the same as he had made at a previous meeting at Okaiawa. The meeting then broke up, 'and he went with his people back to Wellington. Two or three months later we again went down to Wellington — this was the last session; but, of course, nothing was said about the reserves and the promises, and we waited and waited for three weeks, but nothing was done. 18. Was that during last session—November, 1911? —Yes, 1911. Nothing was done, so we came back. It was only during the last two months that I heard a Commission was to be appointed to inquire into this question of the lands. We held a conference a month or two ago to sum up Mr. Carroll's promises, and we found he was a failure. I suppose I have to tell the truth. We thought Mr. Carroll was a failure. He first promised to give us the 18,000 acres; second, he said he would snap the Public Trustee between his finger and thumb; and, thirdly, he wrote to tell us that he was sending a Commission to make inquiry into these lands. I stand before the Commission as a landless Maori. I was one with others who were left out of a common grant, and I spoke to my nearest relatives about the matter. I said, "I had the same right as you in these reserves, only I was left out." I spoke to Mr. Carroll and Mr. Fisher about it, and they said they could not do anything as the lands were in the hands of the Public Trustee. However, there was a 5-acre section at Normanby, and this was given to me. 19. The beneficiaries have arranged for you to live on it?— Yes. My home is on it, and I do not pay for it because the beneficiaries say I have the same right to that portion, only I was left out. 20. You also lease, I think, some other land? —I leased 3 acres from Mr. Lysaght at the time. 21. Mr. Lysaght is a lessee under the West Coast Settlement Acts of 1881 and 1892?— Under the 1881 Act, I think —Mr. Harry Lysaght. 22. It is leased under the 1887 Act and you sublease back from him? —Yes, I paid him £2 an acre for the sublease. 23. I think you are a member of the committee of the union? —Yes, and have been from the beginning. 24. And you have compiled a list of those Natives absolutely without land?— Yes, I have. 25. That means the Maoris who have no share in any rents or any of the reserves? —Yes, Maoris who have no share in any of the rents and with parents who are not in the grants. 26. Have you that list with you?— Yes. [Produced.] There are eighty on the list who are completely landless. Of course, there are others to come into the list. 27. Have you come across any Maoris at all who are in favour of the lessees' applications being granted? —No, I have not met with one who is in favour of the leases being renewed once they fall in. 28. Mr. Eerr.~\ You have discussed it with them, have you?— Yes. 29. Mr. Bell.] Now, in regard to the evidence you have heard from the Maoris, are the witnesses who have been called odd cases or are they typical cases?--The witnesses who have already given evidence are typical witnesses. 30. Gross-examined by Mr. Welsh.] How long has Mr. Charlie Bayley been dead? —Between three and four years. 31. And since his death, to your knowledge, have the Maoris still frequently let the lands occupied by them to Europeans ? —Some of them have, yes. 32. And round Hawera to-day is the bulk of the Native land which they have the right to occupy occupied by them or by Europeans?—l think half and half. I think it is mostly occupied by Maoris. 33. Do you blame the dead man for that?— Well, for the lands that have been let to Europeans through him when he was alive. Most of those lands are still in the hands of some Europeans. 34. Do you say, Mr. Haddon, that the bulk, of the lands occupied by Europeans to-day were let through Mr. Charlie Bayley in his lifetime? —Round about Hawera. 35. Do you say that? —I do not say all the land, but I say some of the land. 36. Lands that have been let within the last twelve months by the Maoris to Europeans, do you blame the dead man for that?—Oh, no. 37. Do you blame him for having influenced the Natives to let those lands in his lifetime to Europeans?—l blame him for that, yes.

E. X HADDON.]

117

G.—2.

38. You think then that it was to the detriment of the Native that lands which the Native had the right to occupy should have been let to Europeans?— Yes. 39. Whether done by Mr. Bayley or by any one else?— Yes, whether done by Mr. Bayley or by any one else. 40. Now, did Mr. Bayley's influence extend beyond the immediate vicinity of Hawera and ■ Normanby?—l think, mostly in the districts of Hawera and Normanby. 41. Do you suggest that Mr. Bayley's influence had anything to do with the letting of the lands, we will say, round Manaia? —I do not know. 42. Do you suggest, for instance, that Mr. Bayley's influence had anything to do with the letting of the lands round Opunake? —No, I do not know. 43. Do you suggest that Mr. Bayley's influence had anything to do with the letting of the lands at Parihaka?—That I cannot tell you —I do not know. I am talking of round about Hawera, Meremere, Taiparanui, and Normanby. 44. Mr. Kerr.] You say, Mr. Haddon, that there are about eighty landless Natives in the district ? —Yes. 45. Can you say whether they have applied to the Public Trustee to take up some of those 20,000 acres which he says he still has in hand ready for occupation by the Natives under occupation licenses ?—We have had a discussion over that very matter, and finding that those lands were held by the Public Trustee we thought it was not worth while applying for them until this inquiry into the 18,000 acres was completed. 46. With regard to the 18,000 acres, all that you can hope for at present is that when these leases fall in the Natives may have the right to bid for them, and still the title would be under the Public Trustee just as the 20,000 acres which are at present available? —Yes. 47. The Chairman.'] Do you consider that if you got the 18,000 acres settled you would be a day's march nearer home?— That is what we are given to understand by our relatives who are in the Crown grants : that was the wish of those who are outside the grants. 48. You are, as it were, standing by to see what will be the result of this Commission?— Yes, that is so. 49. Mr. Kerr.] Can you say how many of those landless Natives were entitled by right to have been included in the original grants of these reserves? I gathered from you that some of those landless Natives were persons who really had a claim to be included in the original grants? —Yes, they have the same right in those lands as have been granted to their relatives —that is, those who are in the grants. I had an uncle who is in the grant, while his sister, who is my mother, was left out. I come in and say I have the same right as my uncle, but my mother and I were left out. 50. You claim under a person who had a right to be included in the original grant?— That is so. 51. Have all those landless Natives become landless through their own improvidence?—No; I think they are all like I have mentioned. Mr. Bell: It is impossible for them to be landless through their own improvidence—it is inalienable. 52. Mr. Eerr.\ Some of those Natives may have had Native lands in their own rights and sold those lands? —No. 53. Mr. Bell.] The landless Natives are those who ought to have been included in those grants but were not? —Yes. Mr. Bell: I said, Mr. Chairman, that at least one of the lessees purchased a lease in 1911. I have searched the title myself, and find it was transferred in May, 1911. [Document put in, Exhibit X.] Thomas William Fishee sworn and examined. (No. 51.) 1. Mr. Bell.] You are Under-Secretary for Native Affairs?— Yes. 2. You were at one time Reserves Agent in connection with the west coast leases? —Yes. 3. Now, Mr. Fisher, you will remember when the right to convert under the Act of 1892 was revived —it was twice revived ?—Yes. 4. What steps were taken to apprise the lessees of their right to convert?— Speaking of the 1895 extension —that, I think, was section 10 of the Native Reserves Act Amendment Act, 1895— I am not aware of any special effort being made to bring it under the notice of the lessees at that period. 5. Well, take 1898? —In 1898 I am satisfied that notice was sent to all the lessees who had not taken advantage of the prior right. 6. Now, that notice was, I think 4 sent by registered letter?— Yes. So far as my memory goes, I think a copy is on the file of the name of every person to whom the letter was sent; and, further, I believe a notice was inserted in the local papers. 7. Was it inserted once or more than once?—l could refresh my memory by looking at the file. 8. The record on the file would probably show that circulars were sent out by registered post [file produced to witness] ?—Yes, there is a list on the file showing to whom the notices were posted, and I notice also that I state that notices had been placed in conspicuous places at each post-office between Hawera and Opunake. 9. Well, I suppose you were not in the habit of reporting what was not correct? I am quite satisfied I took that action, otherwise I would not have reported it.

G.—2.

118

[t. w. pisheb

10. If those registered letters were riot delivered would you have a record of their being returned? —There should have been a record on the file, but I do not remember an}- registered letter being returned. 11. Do you remember the passing of these Acts or what led up to the pa>ssing of these Acts which revived the right to convert? —There was a general right by the Act of 1892, and that was for one year. 12. But do you remember the circumstances leading up to the passing of each of those Acts which revived the right to convert? —1 say there was a general right in 1892, and then in 1895 the right was revived owing to the fact that a great number of people said they had not seen the Act of 1892 and therefore did not know of their right. 13. And in 1898? —Then in 1898 the right was revived again owing to agitation on the part of the lessees. I might say that in November, 1896, just after the right which was revived by the Act of 1895 had expired, the Public Trustee had arranged to go through the West Coast Settlement Reserves district. He was, however, unable to go himself, and therefore sent the Deputy Public Trustee, Mr. Duncan, who saw the majority of the lessees between Pukearuhe and Waitotara. I know also that in Hawera there was a fairly well attended meeting of the lessees, at which this question was brought forward again. That was in November, 1896, just after the right created by the Act of 1895 had expired. 14. Were you present at the meeting?— Yes. The matter was discussed, and the Deputy Public Trustee was asked to take steps to have the right revived again, and that led to the subsequent revival in 1898. 15. Almost every lessee has gone into the witness-box and sworn that he never knew of any subsequent right to convert after 1892 : can you conceive that that is so ?—lt seems to nic strange that it should be so. 16. Now, there is just one thing I want to ask you about. Mr. Andrews, one of the lessees, said that he was misled by you. He thought at the time that the conversation was in 1892, but when it was pointed out that you did not come here till 1895, he said it may have been in 1895 that he had the conversation with you. He says you told him there was no limit to the compensation which, he was to get for improvements. Is that so? —I am certain I never told him that. It was in 1900 that I discussed this matter with Andrews, after the 1898 revival. I am quite satisfied that I did not discuss the matter with him in 1892. 17 There was no such discussion in 1892 or 1893? —I am quite satisfied I did not discuss the point then. 18. And you are certain you did not tell him that the compensation for improvements was unlimited? —That is so. 19. Gross-examined by Mr. Welsh.] You say that Mr. Duncan came here in November, 1896? —I think that was the year. 20. And the question then was the revival of the right to convert? —That was one of the questions. There were a number of questions. 21. Are you sure of that? —Yes. 22. Where was the meeting held? —At the Council Chambers. 23. Were there many there? —A fair number—the room was fairly full. 24. Do you remember any one else being there?— Yes, Mr. Godsal took a prominent part, and lam not quite sure whether Mr. McKeown was not there. A number of others were there. 25. Was either of the Messrs. Best there? —I cannot say. Mr. Godsa] and Mr. McKeown took a prominent part in it, and also others. It was pretty fully reported at the time. 26. You are speaking of November, 1896?— Yes. 27. You think the newspaper file of that time will show a report of that meeting and what was discussed? —Yes. I think the £5 per acre limitation for improvements was discussed, and I remember the Deputy Public Trustee distinctly stating the difference between a lease under the 1892 Act and a lease under the 1881 Act. 28. Are you sure there was any question of the revival of the right discussed at that meeting? —Yes, I remember it being mentioned. 29. You say a registered notice was sent to each lessee notifying him of the right to convert [file produced]? —Yes. 30. Will you read the list?—" List of notices posted to lessees re new amendment under 1898 Act for exchanging 1881 and amendment leases to 1892 Act." 31. And then comes the list of the names? —Yes. 32. And after that the words " Posted 14th December, 1898 " ?—Yes, that is so. 33. Is that list in your handwriting?—No, that is not my handwriting. 34. Whose writing is it in? —Mr. Oswin's, a clerk. 35. I take it that you cannot say of your own knowledge that those letters were ever posted?— I did not post them. 36. You directed them to be posted by a clerk in your office? —Yes. 37. You have no receipts from the Post Office on your file showing that those letters were posted? —I am not aware whether Mr. Zachariah has got them, but I believe they were in existence at New Plymouth. 38. When did you see them there? —I have an impression that I saw them there. I have been away about six years, and it was some years before that. 39. In the ordinary course of events should those registered receipts for the notices be on the file?—No, they were just tied up in small bundles. 40. What was the name of the clerk whom you directed to post those notices? —Oswin. 41. Where is he? —In Auckland. 42. Was he prosecuted subsequently?— Yes.

119

G.—2.

I. W. FISHES.

43. What for? — Embezzlement of funds. 44. What year was lie prosecuted? —That I could not say from memory—it would be later than 1900. It would be seven or eight years ago. 45. And was he convicted? —Yes. 46. What sentence did he receive? —1 am not sure —nine months or twelve months. 47. The Chairman.} One witness, John Clarke, says he did not get on the land till January, 1899, and yet his name is on the list. He says he did not receive any notice, but evidently he made a mistake?—l feel satisfied he was there in 1898. If he was not a lessee, how could his name be on the list? There are some names which 1 heard mentioned —for instance, Bests'. It is very probable in their cases they did not receive individual notices, but a joint notice. 48. Mr. Zachariah.] The consent was given for transfev of lease to Clarke on 27th October, 1898? —He was in possession when the notices were sent out. He would be in possession prior to the consent being given, no doubt. 49. The Chairman.] I understood him to say he was on the land some nine months before he got consent?—He was recognized as one of the lessees at date notices were posted. In Bests' case only a joint notice was sent to them. That would come about owing to the fact that for the separate leases held individually they had already refused to come in under the Act of 1892. That notice was for the section they had in their joint names. They had a section each and also a section between them jointly. The sections that they held individually I am not prepared to say they received notices of, but a notice was posted to them in regard to the section held jointly. Mr. Bell: May it please your Worships,—Before I go on to review what has taken place at this hearing, as the end of the hearing is in sight, I should like to make some remarks which I am quite certain will be indorsed by my friend. I should like to thank, you both, sirs, for the very great courtesy and consideration which you have shown to us. It has been a very difficult question to deal with, a long and trying hearing, and neither my friend nor I have failed to receive the utmost courtesy. Mr. Welsh: I have very much pleasure in joining most heartily with my friend in his remarks. I entirely concur and indorse all he has said. We have received nothing but the utmost courtesy and consideration during the hearing of this case. The Chairman: We should like to say what we have to say when you have finished. Mr. Bell: Before I finally reply I should like just to refer to one point in my opening. 1 have read the shorthand report of my opening since I delivered it, and there is one point which I hope I made quite clear, although lam not quite certain that I did. I was making the point that it must have occurred to any lessee who looked at the 1892 Act, section 8, as to converting an 1881 lease into an 1892 lease, that a lessee converting was to come in on the basis of £5 of improvements belonging to him. I did not mean that in the 1892 Act there was the £5 limitation, and that is just the distinction. The provisions as to ordinary 1892 leases did not mention the £5 at all, but when we come to section 8 we find that the Legislature had in mind the £5 limitation in the 1881 Act, so it said, If you come in under the 1892 Act you start on the basis of only £5 of improvements belonging to you. I asked Mr. Andrews if he noticed that, and he said Yes, he thought it was odd, but he did not make inquiries. Now, Ido not intend to deal again at any length with the lessees' case, but there is the question of the knowledge of the right to convert, to which I again desire to refer. It is not one of the questions upon which you are asked to report, but it is one of the arguments used in support of the lessees' present claim. I argued—and I do not propose to repeat the argument —that even if the lessees did not know in fact of their right to convert, that would not really support their argument that they ought now to have the right, because, as I said, it was in the nature of a gift or concession, and the Public Trustee was not bound to let them know, and even if he was bound to let them know and failed, still his failure should not be compensated for out of the Maoris' pockets. Now, your Worships have heard this morning Mr. Fisher's evidence with reference to the sending of those registered notices. My friend cross-examined Mr. Fisher, and discovered that those letters were sent, if they were sent, by a clerk who has since had to serve a sentence for embezzlement, and I anticipate that my friend will suggest that the clerk in this case embezzled the moneys which should have gone to pay for those registered letters. Your Worships will not forget that "at least one of the lessees admitted that he received a notice in TB9B, and if the clerk embezzled the money which ought to have been spent in sending those registered letters he would have embezzled the lot. You have now abundant evidence of further discussion of the leases every time the right to convert cropped up, and you have abundant evidence as to the knowledge of the £5 limitation for improvements. Mr. Fisher entirely indorsed the argument I used in my opening. The matter was generally known throughout the district, and it was discussed every time a meeting of the lessees was held. Mr. Fisher also indorsed a point I made in my opening when he said that those two Acts reviving the right to convert did not pass themselves, but were passed as the result of meetings and agitation on the part of the lessees. Your Worships will remember that, after I left the lessees' case and before I came to deal with my own case, I dealt with the Public Trustee's position in the matter. I have tried to indicate that we do not think the Public Trustee has done anything morally wrong except in the failure to properly realize his position. I suggest now, and I tried to suggest it in my opening, that the Public Trustee's administration has been without backbone; he has not realized the responsibility that was on him of safeguarding the Native interests whenever a question of this kind cropped up. Directly the question as to whether the 1892 Act was to be passed cropped up it was his duty to go into the whole matter and see whether it met with the approval of the Natives. The Chairman: You mean that you think he should have consulted the beneficiaries?

G.-2

120

Mr. Bell: Yes, and have studied the whole question himself, and, whether he thought it was in the interests of the beneficiaries or not, I suggest he should have consulted the beneficiaries, and if they objected it was his duty to make known that objection to the powers that be. The Chairman: And he should have consulted the chief Native owners. Mr. Bell: I think he should, and I submit he should. There is this typical instance, which I mentioned in my opening also, with reference to the Public Trustee's memorandum on which my friend relies so much. Your Worships will remember that I pointed out that that memorandum came shortly after a memorandum in which he had said " There is not now sufficient land for the Natives, and these 18,000 are necessary for them," and he went on to say that the Natives must not be deprived of the right to compete. The Chairman: That was the preceding one 1 Mr. Bell: Yes, that was the preceding one. Then he made the memorandum on which my friend relies, and he suggested that practically what my friend asks should be given, and he explains his change of mind by saying that when he made his first memorandum he did not know that the lessees had been misled. The Chairman: I was looking at that memorandum myself yesterday. Were they both made by the same Public Trustee? Mr. Bell: Mr. Poynton made them both. He made the first memorandum practically backing up my position, and then he made the second backing up the lessees' position ; and the reason for the change of mind was that he said he did not know when he made his first memorandum that the lessees had been misled. The Chairman: Does he say that in his second memorandum \ Mr. Bell: Yes, but your Worships will see what he does: the lessees come to him and say, " We have been misled," and he accepts their assurance. The Chairman: That is one of the questions we have to settle now. Mr. Bell: Yes, and I do submit that it was obviously Ihe Public Trustee's duty to inquire and not to take the lessees' word for it. That is why I say the administration has been wanting in backbone. lam leading up to this for a special reason : I am trying to induce your Worships to give me as strong a report as I can possibly have. Your AVorships know that time after time Acts have gone on to the statute-book which, at any rate, the Natives say are not in their interests. These Acts have been passed without the Natives being consulted, and you have a concrete instance of the Public Trustee merely accepting the lessees' word and doing something which in an earlier report he had admitted wouid be against the Natives' interests. The Chairman: What is the date of the second memorandum? Mr. Bell: 1909, when the lessees were before the Lands Committee. Now, I had not intended to say more than I have said about the Public Trustee's administration, but I am compelled to say more owing to the attitude which Dr. Fitchett took up. Dr. Fitchett, so far as the office is concerned, was, of course, interested to defend the Public Trust administration. He defends it on two grounds : First, he says that the Act of 1881 said the Public Trustee was to be guided by " the interests of the Natives " and " the promotion of settlement," and he says that in my opening I put too much weight on the first and too little weight on the second. Surely the " promotion of settlement " means the promotion of settlement for the best interests of the Natives and the advancement of the district from which the Natives draw their rents. If the Public Trustee's administration was to be defended on that ground, if he could get behind those words —" the promotion of settlement " —he might have allowed the tenants to occupj r free of rent. That would be justified if the promotion of settlement was to be in the interests of the pakeha. It was to be, of course, in the interests of the Maori. Then Dr. Fitchett goes on to defend the Public Trust administration on the ground that I am wrong in contending that there was a bargain in 1880 and 1881. Well, Dr. Fitchett was, not speaking by the book. I did not ask him, but I assume he has not read the reports of the Commissions to which I referred your Worships. I will hand the reports in, and in one of the reports (Volume I, page 46) your Worships will find a statement by the Commissioners reporting on what ought to be done —that is to say, what they had in mind. They referred to two Proclamations, and one of them is as follows (1864) : "The land of those Natives who have adhered to the Queen shall be secured to them; and to those who have rebelled, but wjio shall at once submit to the Queen's authority, portions of the land taken will be given back for themselves and their families. To all those who have remained and shall continue in peace and friendship the Governor assures the full benefit and enjoyment of their lands." Then, on sth September, 1865, as follows: "Out of the lands which have been confiscated at Taranaki and Ngatiruanui the Governor will at once restore considerable quantities to those of the Natives who wish to settle down upon their lands, to hold them under Crown grants, and to live under the protection of the law." That is what the Commissioners had in their minds, and I submit it is absolutely unarguable to say that any arrangement come to following on those Proclamations is anything but a bargain. The Natives had submitted—they had put down their arms, and an arrangement was come to; that is, I submit, the clearest possible bargain it is possible to conceive. Now, I should not object to Dr. Fitchett defending the Public Trust administration —he is bound to do that, of course —but I confess I do object to a person in the position of a trustee taking up an attitude which is hostile to the attitude taken up by the beneficiaries, and working against them. He is not, perhaps, entirely in that position, because I suppose he would claim to be classified as a man giving expert evidence for the information of the Commissioners—an expert view for the assistance of the Commissioners. Well, if he takes up that position he must either be an expert himself —and he cannot be that, because he has only been in the position for from one to two years, and therefore he cannot have specially studied the que&tion of the West Coast Settlement Reserves leases, and you will find very few letters on the file signed by Dr. Fitchett —or he must be the representative of a Department which is giving

G —2-

expert assistance. But surely he cannot be giving the expert views of the Department, for the Department cannot have made the mistake of thinking that the original arrangement was not a bargain. The Department, at an}- rate, cannot have been ignorant of the reports of the earlier Commission. The Department must have known that they were bound'to look, after the Natives, and if they did not know, 1 suggest to your Worships that the point should be made very clear in your report that it is about time they did know. One position taken up by Dr. Fitchett, which your Worships will remember, was this: lie says, " I agree that if possible the Natives should be given the opportunity of competing for these leases." He says, " I agree that that concession to the Natives will be little less than a sham unless the Natives are assisted by finance/" _ Then he goes on to say, " But if we cannot finance them, then it is in the interests of the Natives to allow the present lessees to convert." Well, that point needs, I suggest, particular consideration, because h is obviously the point of attack when Parliament meets, the point at which the lessees will direct their attack. They will try to block any measures in support of financing these Natives, and then they will produce the Public Trustee's views that if the Natives cannot be given finance, then the right of conversion ought to be given to the lessees. I ask your Worships to consider that, and if you take the same view as I do, I ask you to make the report so that that attack of the lessees can be successfully opposed. I confess I cannot see that it is a logical argument, even supposing the Natives could not take advantage this time of their opportunity to compete. Ido submit that it is illogical to contend that therefore they ought to be debarred for eve)' from any future opportunities to compete, when we originally guaranteed those opportunities to them. Now I turn to the evidence which I have led. I submit that I have established everyone of the points which I promised your Worships I would establish by my witnesses. Your Worships have ample evidence of the movement since the Parihaka days, and that is supported in the oddest possible way by a forecast made by Dr. Pomare before the Parihaka days were over. This movement is no recent invention, because Dr. Pomare foresaw it, and any man who had studied the Natives as carefully as he had could have foreseen that this was what was going to take place directly Te Whiti and Tohu died; and your Worships have had evidence of the marvellous way in which they have gone ahead. There is evidence of successful dairy-farming despite the difficulties which do not stand in the way of the pakeha. The Maoris who have given evidence, many of them who are milking successfully, were without finance when they started; they had to work for the pakeha and earn a little, and then clear the lands themselves. Sometimes they leased their lands free of rent in order to get them cleared, and some cleared them themselves. Another point that must militate against successful farming is that they had no permanency of tenure, and they also had to take the risk of having lands which they had cultivated taken from them and leased to the pakeha. There could not be much greater forces tending to give a set-back to the advancement of a race. The disappointment of a Maori getting his land into cultivation and then having it taken from him and leased to the pakeha must be great. I do not criticize the Public Trustee in this connection —I do not know whether he was right or wrong, and I have not inquired and I am not inquiring—but I do say that the Act which gave the Public Trustee power and directed him to do that was wrong from the very beginning —absolutely wrong. Your Worships must have been impressed with the evidence of that Maori who said, " I brought my land into cultivation, I was farming it successfully, when one day it was taken from me and leased to a pakeha." Asked who it was leased to he said, " Solway." " And what are you doing now?" "I am working for Solway." I pointed out and contended in my opening that if the Natives are to be disappointed now this movement may die, and I brought evidence in support of that contention. Surely, w-hen we are doing no injustice to the pakeha in keeping him to his bargain, it is a little unreasonable for the pakeha to ask that he should be given something more than he bargained for, when the result of that gift will be to set back the whole of the Maori advancement in Taranaki. Your Worships will remember that never once in the whole history of the west coast leases have the Natives asked to depart one iota from their bargain. They recognize that these lessees are in for thirty years. Although originally it was arranged that leases should only be granted for twenty-one years, they do not ask that the nine years balance of the leases should be taken from the lessees; thej r are quite prepared that the lessees should have everything they bargained for; the lessees shall continue in their leases up till the end of the term, and then have the right to compete with them for the leases. The Natives say that Sir Jaiues Carroll promised them, that that would be so. They do not object to the pakeha competing--they cannot and do not object. While the Native does not depart one iota from the bargain, you find the pakeha departing all along the line. If we are to keep our bargain with the Native, we have to give him ample opportunity of competing with the pakeha for these leases. If there was no Advances to Settlers Department then the Native could not complain if the pakeha. managed to get loans from outsiders and he could not get them, but once we have started the Advances to Settlers Department, and we advance to the pakeha to enable him to compete, then surely it is only keeping our bargain to give the Native an equal opportunity of competing. It must have been assumed in 1.881 that the Native and the pakeha would have equal opportunities of competing, and the Native only asks now for that opportunity. Now I come to deal with the question of finance. Your Worships will remember I stated that in conversation with Dr. Fitchett I learned that his view was that you must protect the Natives from themselves when you are givinothem any finance —that you must not assist them to do themselves damage. The Chairman: Is there not a little too much of the idea that the Native has not grown up ? Mr. Bell: I submit there is. I submit that the Natives are of age, but I am going to make a suggestion which will give ample opportunity of preventing any such calamity as Dr. Fitchett thinks possible. Your Worships will remember that in dealing with the loans that have already been advanced on leases to pakehas by the Advances to Settlers Department I contended, and I

16— G. 2.

121

G-.—2.

think I made myself clear, that the lending Department is quite safe in lending three-fifths provided the loan does not exceed £5. The Chairman: That is to say, if they had their improvements up to .£8 6s. 8d. —if that was certain, then the lending Department would be safe in lending £5 on that? Mr. Bell: Yes, they would be perfectly safe. Whether or not the Department has statutory authority to lend up to that I have not considered. So far as improvements are concerned, all a competitor for a lease has to find is £5 per acre. In almost every one of these cases there is a margin over the £5, which will give the necessary security. If the lending Department has not authority at present to lend up to £5 when the improvements are as much as £8 6s. Bd., then it ought to be given that power. Then you say to your lending Department, "Any applicant, whether a Maori or pakeha, who applies for a loan may be granted a loan of equal to three-fifths of the value of the improvements provided the loan does not exceed £5 per acre." That will give the Maori the opportunity of financing the purchase of the improvements. The Chairman: That would mean that the minimum amount of improvements would have to be £8 6s. Bd. Mr. Bell: Yes. If the improvements were worth only £5, the maximum amount he could get would be £3. You still have your margin. Then, having got that financed, let us take the position of the improvident Native who goes in and allows the land to go back. From what position lias the Trustee to look at the matter first? From the point of view of the beneficiaries who are getting the loan—the owners of the land. The Native lessee may or may not be one of the beneficiaries. What does a trustee do in the case of an improvident pakeha? He turns to the covenants under the lease and says, " You can go out and I will put the lease up to auction again " ; and why should he not do that with the Maori, and why should not that be a perfect safeguard against the Maori doing himself or the land any damage? Just eject him if the land is going back. The Chairman: The same power as he has in the case of an improvident pakeha? Mr. Bell: Yes. It is obvious the covenants in a lease are drawn not with the object of catching the careful lessee; all the covenants in a lease are meant to catch the man who is not a good tenant, and the covenants in this lease certainly appear to be sufficient, and to be a perfect safeguard against the land going back or the Native doing himself any damage. Now, your Worships, I submit that disposes of the purchase of the improvements. It is a very simple scheme. It is not an ornamental one, but a perfectly workable one. Then, the Native has to find more money to finance his stock and his implements. Now what does the pakeha do under similar circumstances? He goes to the stock agent and gets the whole of his stock financed, and he pays out of his milk cheques. Your Worships have had in the box many Maoris who have said that they got financed by stock agents, and that they paid back out of their milk cheques. Every one of those witnesses who have said that have also said that there is not now one penny owing. The Chairman: Yes, it has been paid off, and sometimes they gave the whole of the cheque instead of half in order to get rid of the burden. Mr. Bell: Yes. I would not make any reference to that side of the finance except with regard to the point that came out in Dr. Pomare's evidence, that it is very often that Natives who are good marks do not get advances because the stock agent has not the time to really go into the whole question of a Native's standing. Some of those Natives who managed to get financed and started farming said that they knew other Natives who would be prepared to start if they could find a pakeha like they had done. It is difficult for a pakeha to carry on that sort of business, and he does not take the trouble to do it in a great number of cases. Now, my suggestion is this : it may not appear at first sight to be really within the scope of the Commission, but I suggest it is actually within the scope of the Commission, because your Worships are making suggestions as to what should be done in the way of finance when the leases come up for competition. It seems to me that, suppose you gave some guarantee to the stock agent who was prepared to advance the stock-—a guarantee, say of 20 per cent. —the business would be done. The stock agent would have no trouble. Simplify the formalities required in Native-chattel securities and give a guarantee up to 20 per cent, of the amount of the advance. Then the Native would get his finance quite easily for the stock, and that is only putting the Native on the same footing as the pakeha, because the 20-per-cent. guarantee would just about compensate for the difference between the ease with which the stock agent deals with the pakehi! and deals with the Maori. Then, where fs that 20-per-cent. guarantee to come from? I suggest that it should come out of the whole of the rents of the West Coast Settlement leases. It could be done in this way : the union or some other organization—l suggest the union as being apparently an admirable organization —should recommend certain men to receive this guarantee, and that the Public Trustee should only guarantee up to 20 per cent., and only in cases where the individual to be guaranteed has been actually recommended by the union. That appears to me to have an enormous advantage, to this extent : that you are putting: the union as representatives of the receivers of rent in the position of taking carp that they do not recommend a bad mark, so that you are assuring as far as possible that only good substantial hard-working Maoris take on these leases. It is serving a double object :it gives these men advances, and it also puts the pick of the men on these leases. It does seem to me that this scheme would work. Tt is possible it may be considered advisable to make the guarantee only out of the rents arising from the particular grant in which the land is, but T suggest that the guarantee should be from all the rents, and that, say, half the amount of the total rents for the year should be responsible for that guarantee. I know the Natives would accept that position, and they do not think, and Ido not think, they would lose one penny in accepting; that position. You would also have the advantage of giving them the financial reason for pickiner the very best possible men to take up these leases. That is alj I have to say about finance. T will stop at that point, but if there is any question

122

G-.— 2.

123

which your Worships would like me to deal with I will do so. 1 have tried to make the point as short and simple as I could. The Chairman: The idea that suggested itself to Mr. Kerr and myself is that this guarantee would have to be out of all rents. Mr. Bell: I suggest that it would be easier to work it in that way. The Chairman: And the union would recommend some particular person as a fit and proper person to take up that particular lease? Mr. Bell: As a fit and proper person to have that stock advance guaranteed. The Chairman: You are only talking about the stock advances? Mr. Bell: Yes. The Chairman: It has occurred to both Mr. Kerr and myself that probably they might object to the guarantee coining out of all the rents. Mr. Bell: I said it may be thought advisable to guarantee it only out of the rents accruing from the particular grant in which the land was, but it seems to me that it is fair to suggest that it should come out of all the rents. This is the unanimous desire on the part of the Maoris. The Chairman: How could they attach all the rents 1 The Pubhc Trust Agent would have to pay out to each party, would he not? Mr Bell: I suggest that the rents coining into the hands of the Public Trustee should be subject to a first charge of this guarantee up to 20 per cent. Of course, he only guarantees up to 20 per cent., and it would be found that there would not be one penny of loss. The Chairman: And it would be easier to finance then. Mr. Bell: Yes, and you would have the additional advantage of putting those men on the land who were the best and most suitable. ~ . , ■, t v-u The Chairman: And it would mean that the whole body of Maori owners represented by the union would give their guarantee that this would be done. Mr Bell- Yes. It seems to me it would be an enormous encouragement. Ihe guarantee would be only given to people who would be passed by the union and who were fit for the guarantee. If the union would not pass him he could not expect the guarantee, and would have to find it elsewhere. Now, if your Worships please, I just pass for the moment to the particular points in the Commission. I 'hope your Worships will not think I am endeavouring to dictate the report but I have already indicated that it does appear to me, in view of the inky darkness which seems to have been cast over the whole of this West Coast leases question from the beginning that it is necessary to foresee that there will be further efforts made by the lessees even though you sirs, report against their contentions; and I do ask that in view of your having come up here and looked into the matter and heard both sides argued, if it seems to you that it is obviously a wrong and an injustice that the lessees' application should be conceded to then I do suggest that you ought to, if I may say so, make your report so strong as to prevent the lessees application being acceded to. Now, as to the first of the points of inquiry m the Commission- 1. On what terms and conditions the said lessees or any of them should be permitted to surrender their preent leases and obtain new leases in lieu thereof under section 8 of the West Coast Settlement Reserves Act 1892 "— I do ask that your Worships will point out that we made a bargain, and that it is breaking that bargain to allow these lessees to convert at all, and I do ask that you will trace toe Story of how we have kept that bargain in the years between 1881 and now. I ask you to point out that even with these 18,399 acres there are only about 131 acres per Maori remaining. 1 also ask you to call attention to the first of the two memoranda of the Public Trustee, the one written before he was deceived, in which he takes the very same view which I have been putting to you Both memoranda are in December, 1909. I also ask you to point out that if the US' application is acceded to this movement for the advancement of the Maoris may possibly dYe Then as to the second question asked by the Commission whether any of the lessees have been misled by the Public Trustee, or by the form of the lease or the regulationsThe Chairman: Is not that a question as to the weight of evidence? Mr Bell: There is this point I wanted to bring before your Worships' notice-namely, that if you merely report that the lessees were not misled, and then some one subsequently turns to before the Lands Committee he will say, "Here is evidence taken before the Lands Committee which shows conclusively that they were misled." I think your Worships will find ?£X£2T- Vhaf lam pointing out. I presume we are going to do that. We shall go through the evidence to see whether in our opinion they were or were not misled. Mr Bell • I hope your Worships will not think I am presuming on my position but I am only trying to suggest points which it may not occur to you to put into the report and which.you 7 /forwards think it would have been advisable to put m. If your Worships agree with me S3 th we not m led, I suggest that the report should, go on to point out that even that the lessees weie n , matter for compensation out of the Natives' pockets, suppose he ta-e*hadb en mxsedit is not a m y[ of what DrFHchett has said ako ask you to say that even if the financing should prove to be imp still be a «d . £ S e i le h a r e Mt be rigr£tgh T tMs WingAhat, unless' the lessees' contLtfons >re met, and strongly met, an injustice will be done to the Natives much in the same way as injustices have not l m 'intention at this stage, after the , ""I o make anyattemptto summarize or to sum up the evidence led by myself and that KVvlv Men^ lior Z reasons, first, that the subject is much too large to attempt to sumled by my mena, ioi , secondly, I recognize that I am not addressing

G.—2.

with evidence. If Ido refer to any evidence at all it will be merely with the desire of illustrating a particular fact or series of "facts that 1 am dwelling upon. I would ask your Worships, in considering this matter, to again consider the whole question from the beginning—to consider the existing conditions when the lands were taken up, because I do think, sirs, that unless we grasp that from the beginning we will lose something which will help us afterwards when we come to the consideration of the existing facts of 1912. I do not want to repeat, and I will not repeat what I said in my opening. 1 said there that the land was virgin land, that the lessees had to pay the best rent obtainable at the time, and so on. There is only one observation 1 desire to make in regard to the best improved rent obtainable at the time. My friend seems to think that at the best improved rent obtainable at the time does not mean the best rent on the capital value. Mr Bell: I said that the word " improved " did not have any reference to improvements. Mr. Welsh: In other words, that would not include the capital value. Obviously it decs include the capital value. If your Worships will look at the regulations you will see they say, "At an upset rental equivalent to five pounds per centum on the capital value." There is the answer to that. The improved rent therefore means 5 per cent, on the capital value. Then, sirs, at that time he was making his bargain with the Public Trustee he was getting nothing special in his favour, and when you pass on and consider the reduction of rent you will sec the necessity of it. He was not able to pay his rent out of the land in. its then condition and the conditions under which lie was placed, "it was not only to the lessees' advantage to get the rent reduced, but it was to the advantage of the State to keep the quasi-military settler on the land. Tins land had to be settled somehow—they had to get the best rent they could out of the land. He could not pay his rent, and it was in the interest of the State to keep him there, so what did the Public Trustee do? By Order in Council the tent was reduced, and we are told that is a fraud upon the Native, and that the Native should have been consulted before the rent was reduced. Is it seriously alleged now that in 1887, when Parihaka was in full swing, the duty of the Public Trustee was to consult Te Whiti and Tohu and all his men in authority before an act of that nature was done with the authority of an Order in Council? Tlie proposition only wants to be stated to carry its own refutation.' It is obvious the Public Trustee was not favouring the white man and betraying his trust, but it was essentially in the interests of the advance of the nation that that man should be kept on his land. The Public Trustee took the step by the authority of an Order in Council, and that the step was warranted there is ample evidence to prove by what occurred in succeeding years. You will remember that afterwards, in 1892 and 1893, in many cases the rent was reduced, while in the ten years from 1882 to 1893 prices were going up, and probably you know more of the conditions of that day than I do. Well, when the lessee came to convert in 1892 and 1893 his rent was actually reduced. It is obvious that in 1882 and 1883 they were paying a long way too much rent. I hope that settles the question once and for all. It has nothing to do with my case as to whether the Public Trustee was right or wrong in reducing the rents, but it does seem to me, the more one looks at it and takes a view of the circumstances as they were then, that it is all very well to be wise now and say what should have been done by the Government officers. But it is obvious that, instead of any wrong being done to the Natives, the right step was taken at the time in the interests of the State, in the interests of the lessee, and in the interests of the Native himself, because these hinds had to be settled for the Natives' own sakes. To have left the lands as they were in that condition of rest would have been a serious mistake. Settlement was the thing necessary to the Native difficulty on this coast. Ido not desire to refer any further to tlie form of the lease or the manner in which it is alleged the lessee was misled —its silence, its reference to regulations not then enacted, and tlie necessity on the part of the lessee to have a thorough knowledge of the covenants and regulations—l have said all I desire to say in my opening. I wish to make this observation : I have not asked and I do not ask the Commission to say that the distinction I have suggested between " substantial improvements " and " improvements " is a good distinction, because I do not think it is within the province of the Commission to hold that even if they agreed with me. What I do say is that to the lessee of those days reading the lease, taking tlie plain language of the lease referring to " substantial improvements " and the plain language of the regulations referring to " improvements " as distinguished from " substantial improvements," that the lease itself is calculated to mislead tlie lessee. That is a>s far as I desire to carry that argument. Now, it has been apparently in the minds of some of us that the lessee was getting a fat bargain when in 1881 and the years afterwards he got that lease. It has turned out since that he has done well if he stuck to his land; that land for which lie was paying so-many shillings he is leasing for so-many pounds—or perhaps hardly that, although he has subleased it at an enhanced value; but the lessee would have been far better off if he had not seen the lease at all and had taken up a lease under the Land Acts of those days. If, instead of taking up this lease, he had taken up land under the Land Act of 1885, you will see that from the regulations, of which these regulations are a copy, they gave the tenant a lease which enabled him to convert it into freehold after somany years. If you are interested enough to look at those Acts with the deferred payment or occupation provisions, you will see he would be far better off to-day. It was mentioned by some one that the barg-ain was all on the lessees' side, that he got a lease at a fairly low rent, and came in and hung on to it, and now he is able to sublet and make enormous profits out of it, and then comes here and asks for more. Well, I do not think that is the position—l do not think that is quite fair, because the lessee of 1881 was getting no great bargain, and that the tenures open to him in those days were far better for him from a financial standpoint than any lease under the West Coast Reserves Act. The Chairman: Tlie only thing is that these things do not touch us

124

G.—2.

Mr. Welsh: I do not ask your sympathy, but it is not fair to say that lie lias done well out of the bargain, I only ask the Commission to take up a neutral position, and I tiiink that is a fair way to put it. Now, regarding the rights of conversion. You will see, sirs, that it is my intention only to touch upon each point as 1 make it. Ido not think it. would have escaped the attention of the Commissioners that the rights of conversion are not so plain to the ordinary intelligence as may appear at first sight. First of all the Commissioners will have noticed the names of the statutes by which the rights were given. It is odd, at any rate, to the lay mind. 1 should imagine that if a lease under which a lessee held or the -Act under which lie held —the West Coast Settlement Reserves Act—was going to be altered in any way that the amending Act should have the same title; but for reasons best known to the legislators they always headed these amendments as Native Acts and under various names. Your Worships will also have noticed the gaps in the legislation from time to time, and the technical manner in which the amending Act always antedates itself. It says it is going to have two years' operation, but when you come to work it out it only has one year's operation. Under the amending Act, which was not called the West Coast Native Reserves Act, but the Native Empowering Act, the right was only for twelve months, and the next Act gives the right for another two years. You must take that with all its limitation. It ma}- be said, and has been said, that it was not for the Public Trustee or the legislators or any one else to warn the lessees of their rights; but, nevertheless, the fact remains that there are the gaps, the technical wording of the statute, and the peculiar way the legislators tried to hide the Acts so that the lessees would not be made aware that Acts for which they were to be held responsible would be for their benefit. That brings us down to the positive testimony of the witnesses regarding their want of knowledge after 1892, and I vesture to say that it is impossible to think that some of those witnesses at all events were saying what was not true. I venture to think that some of those witnesses carried conviction to any one who listened to them. 1 specially desire to refer to Hughson, Foreman, the two Bests, Newell, Palmer, McKenzie, and Mrs. Mitchell. In their cases I think they have all demonsti ated to the Commission by the nature of the improvements put upon the land after their knowledge of the right of conversion that it would have been highly profitable for them to have converted after 1893, especially in 1900; also the distinction taken by the two Bests, that in 1892 and 1893 when they were hard up and were struggling, and when things were just on the balance with them as to whether they should cany on at all, as compared with their better position from 1895 on to 1900. Again, it is said there is proof positive that the} - received this notice referred to by the Under-Secretary for Native Affairs in the witness-box this morning. Now, I want to put it to you, sirs, that there is no evidence whatever that any one of the lessees on that list ever i eceived the notice at all. I do not care how you take it; the evidence at the most against us is that Mr. Fisher directed a clerk in his office to send those notices out. Mr. Kerr: More than that, there is the list itself. Mr. Welsh: I am coming to that. Mr. Fisher believed the notices had been sent out because on the file there is a report from this clerk that he had sent the notices out —a report to his superior officer. Mr. Bell points out that there is evidence of one notice having been received by one lessee. My point is that all those gentlemen who have gone into the witness-box, especially those nine ] have mentioned, have sworn positively that they did not receive that notice. I point out that their acts after that date are consistent with their not having received the notices, and I say there is no evidence that any one of those persons ever received the notice referred to by Mr. Fisher in the witness-box; on the other hand, the evidence lies all the other way. A document of State is presumed to be properly written, to be properly executed, and to be properly sent out; but to begin with, this is no document of State. A document of State is only taken because it is the best evidence, but this is not the best evidence; any amount of evidence could, if it were true, have been called to prove that these notices were sent out. The clerk is in Auckland, there are the Post Office receipts, but we have seen nothing of them. If 1 send a registered letter out I receive the receipt to show it has gone out, and the ordinary practice is to attach the receipt to the letter-book. That is the best evidence that could be called in proof of the fact, but it is no evidence to quote a memorandum that purports to be signed by no one. It is not even signed by this man Oswin, the clerk. It is a mere list of names with the date, and says that those notices were sent out to the lessees named. Mr. Bell: There is a covering letter by Mr. Fisher. Mr. Welsh: Yes, because he believed his clerk had sent out those notices. The coveringletter is from Mr. Fisher to the Public Trustee reporting that lie has done a certain tiling. My point is that Mr. Fisher, in sending that letter, relies upon the report that his clerk puts in front of him that he has sent those circulars out to those people—a memo, from a clerk to his superior officer. Mr. Fisher is no evidence at all against us. It is not the best evidence; it is not evidence even purporting to be a list signed by the clerk and handed in to his superior officer. The Chairman: T do not know whether it is exactly parallel in the case of notices for calls, but if a man denies having got a notice, is it not sufficient to produce before the Court evidence that a certain list is made out and been given to an ordinary clerk to post : is not that taken as evidence? Mr. Welsh: I think there is special provision in the Companies Act with regard to calls. The point is met in Taj'lor on Evidence. Mr. Kerr: Is there not some special provision in the Rating Act? Mr. Welsh: Yes. Tn the Rating Act there is no power to prove notice of a rate in that way, and here, because there is no power, therefore it is not evidence. Now, I know it is in the minds of the Commissioners, because of the various observations which have fallen, that it is difficult to understand that these men did not know of their right of conversion. lam going to suggest a reason. Most of those men who went into the witness-box, you will notice, were

125

G.—2.

lessees who went on the land originally, and stayed there and worked hard on their sections. Now, it is quite conceivable that, being where tliey were, matters of moment and interest to themselves might have been taking place, and did take place, without their being a whit the wiser. None of those men, you will notice, who spoke as to the notices have been reterred to as taking a prominent part in the matter. The two Bests were right at the back of what is now Eltham, and they told us that they worked there, and sometimes did work on the roads to try and get their rents. The same with Newell and Palmer and other men, who have told us exactly the same thing. The same may be said of Mr. Hughson, who was going to give the whole thing up, and whose brother transferred his share to him. Mrs. Mitchell also told us how she was watching and attending her invalid husband, and that she never heard anything about it at all. None of those are people who have taken any prominent part in connection with the leases under which they held. Their story is quite conceivable. I feel, with some confidence, that the settlers representative of our community are in very safe hands. I now want shortly to refer to the claim of the Native. So far I have not had an opportunity of doing so, and I should like to lay down what I submit are a few propositions regarding the Natives' claim from my point of view. First of all he says these 18,000 acres should never have been leased under this tenure. Dr. Pomare in his evidence says that if the Natives had understood in 1881 what was happening they would have been fighting still. Mr. Bell: No. Dr. Pomare said that if the Natives had known in 1881 that the lands were to be leased for all time would the Natives have accepted the position, and he said, " No, they would have been fighting still," Mr. Welsh: I stand corrected then. He says that the Maori has been ill treated by the leasing of his lands under the conditions in the Act of 1881, and that he is entitled to have his lands returned to him. He says that he went to the Native Minister for redress and that he handed in a Bill which would give them redress. Now, that Bill shows exactly what he asked at that time, and he hoped that that Bill had been accepted by the authorities of the day and would become law. The Rev. Mr. Haddon this morning tells us the same thing—he went home believing that the Bill was accepted by the Native Minister and would become law. Now, I handed the Bill in to the Commissioners, and I should like to refer to it very shortly. Section 2 says: "Whenever any lease granted under the West Coast Settlement Reserves Act, 1881, or the West Coast Settlement Reserves Act Amendment Act, 1887 (not being a lease which is perpetually renewable under the West Coast Settlement Reserves Act, 1892), shall expire, the land comprised in such lease shall revest in the Native grantees thereof and their successors, subject however to any restrictions on alienation to which the land was by the terms of the Crown grant thereof expressed to be subject, and subject also to a charge in favour of the Public Trustee for the amount of any compensation which shall by law be payable to the outgoing tenant, his executors, administrators, or assigns, under the terms of the lease thereof." Section 6 says: " The Native Land Court shall have jurisdiction from time to time according to its usual practice to partition the said lands among the Native owners thereof, but no such partition shall take effect until the expiry of the lease (if any) to which the land is subject, and the titles to issue to Native owners pursuant to such partition shall be subject to the same restrictions as are expressed in the grant from the Crown or in the original certificate of title under the Land Transfer Act of the land so partitioned." "7. No partition shall prejudice the Public Trustee's charge for money paid by way of compensation as aforesaid, but the Public Trustee, if he shall be satisfied to do so, may apportion any such charge among the various subdivisions of the land charged and register separate memorials according to such apportionment, if the Native owner or owners of any subdivision shall request him to do so." "8. That in the event of any tenant under any lease as aforesaid refusing or failing to give up possession of the lands comprised in his lease or any part thereof on the expiration or determination thereof, or in the event of any such tenant being in default on the expiration or determination of his lease in payment of rent or in the performance or observance of any express or implied covenant on his part, or in the event of any such tenant doing an injury to the reversion either before or after the expiry of his lease, the Public Trustee is hereby empowered and authorized to commence and prosecute, submit to arbitration, or compromise such actions, suits, claims, and proceedings as he may deem appropriate for the vindication of the rights of the Native owners in respect of the said lands, or for the recovery of possession thereof, or of the rents due, or for double rent in the case of a tenant holding over, or for damages, costs, and expenses, as the case maybe." Now, my third point is that the Maori is of exactly the same mind to-day—that he is entitled to have these lands returned to him free from any lease whatever. Dr. Pomare says he asks the Government to assist the Natives to bid at auction and become the lessees of the land as a step towards getting their lands into their own hands as originally intended. He was only going to use the power of leasing as a means to an end. Dr. Pomare's words were that their ultimate aim was to get their lands into their own hands as originally intended. The only way to enable the Maori to bid successfully at auction, and the only avenue to getting the lands back, was to allow them to bid for the leases; and my friend was quite frank and said that when they got the lands back there was nothing to prevent them throwing up the leases. Mr. Bell: I said, once the Maori became the lessee and the Maori consented to his lease being terminated and the land came back, there was no breach. Mr Welsh: Yes, that is so. So long as the Natives agree amongst themselves that having got the iease they are then going to turn up the lease, my friend says there is nothing to prevent it. Mr Bell: I did not say there is nothing to prevent it. My point is that, assuming they are able to work the lands, when they do that it is competent for the Public Trustee and the grantors to agree amongst themselves.

126

G.—2.

Mr. Welsh: My friend now refers to the Public Trustee, but he did not do so before, and so long as the grantors and the Public Trustee agree amongst themselves there is nothing to prevent the leases being thrown up. That only bears out Dr. Pomare's statement —it would be the Native Land Court that would partition this land and say how it was to be held amongst his friends. Now, Dr. Pomare is not quite so strong in some of his views as some of the members, because the president, Kahu Pukoro, does not believe in this compensation at all; he thinks the white man has had quite enough already; he thinks that instead of the compensation being £5 it should be £4 or £3, or even less. He said he would consider that when he got his turn. Therefore, we have their views pretty clearly now, that they want the land back, as instanced by their Bill. I do not wonder, if what they say is true as to their treatment in respect of this Bill —I do not wonder that they expected to get it back. If this Bill was accepted by the powers of the day as being a Bill to be introduced into Parliament, then I do not wonder at their being dissatisfied at not having the freehold back long before this. If they cannot have the freehold back, then they want to get the leasehold as a means to an end. Then, my friend goes on to suggest the terms of finance which might be accepted by Parliament and which he hopes this Commission will accept as being reasonable. There is one point I overlooked. When the lessee comes in he has to pay £5 an acre for improvements, and then those improvements become the incoming tenant's. The other improvements do not become his :he has to pay rent on the full improved value of the land, as it were, less the improvements up to £5 he has already paid for. Mr. Bell: But all the improvements are taken into consideration when there is a valuation. Mr. Welsh: Pardon me. We will say a lease is terminating to-day; the incoming man has to pay the outgoing man £5 an acre in respect of improvements, but he does not buy the rest of those improvements. Mr. Eerr: Supposing there are more improvements on the land? Mr. Welsh: Exactly; his rent is based on that, and the improvements remain the lessor's. That is one of the troubles of these lessees, that the very improvements that Jones, for instance, has put upon his land, amounting to £10 an acre, he receives £5 an acre back for, but the new rent is based upon the very improvements he has done himself. Mr. Kerr: The unimproved value plus the difference between the value of improvements and £5. Mr. Welsh: Exactly. That being so, how can he finance that? How can he borrow money on improvements that are not his because he has not purchased them 1 All his improvements are the improvements to the extent of £5 : the rest of the improvements belong to the lessor. He has to pay rent on them, and at the end of his term he has to be paid £5 an acre for the improvements on his land. This is the position. How is he going to borrow on those improvements— improvements that are not his? Surely common-sense will establish that if he is going to borrow £20 on improvements he has to pay £20 to get the improvements, and he cannot borrow £20 if he is only paying £5 to get them. Then, my friend is going to set up an authority—a Court of justice—that is to decide who is to hold these lands and how they are to be occupied. Before a Native can be financed or receive the benefits that his brothers will receive he is to be indorsed and accepted by the union. Well, I do not know under what terms the Commission is asked to make any such order at all. I will speak with regard to the reference to the Commission and on what you are called upon to report. You are asked to find four findings, viz. : " (1.) On what terms and conditions the said lessees or any of them should be permitted to surrender their present leases and obtain new leases in lieu thereof under section eight of the West Coast Settlement Reserves Act, 1892. (2.) Whether any of the said lessees have been misled by any act of the Public Trustee or any other officer of the Public Trust Department, or the form of the lease issued, or the regulations made under the West Coast Settlement Reserves Act, 1881, or its amendments, into believing that there was no limit to the amount of compensation to which they were entitled under their leases, and in consequence of such belief made on their leaseholds or purchased from other lessees improvements in excess of five pounds (£5) per acre. (3.) What areas of land now leased under the West Coast Settlement Reserves Act, 1881, and its amendments, may hereafter be required by the Native owners for their use and occupation; and, having regard to their particular interests therein and their individual fitness for profitably using such lands, which of the said leases, if any, should be allowed to remain under the present tenure in order that such Native owners may, on the expiration of such leases, compete for the possession of the lands held under them. (4.) What provisions should be made to enable such Native owners to get financial assistance from the Government to enable them to work their farms, should any of them become tenants of such leaseholds." I should like to observe that the terms of the reference are : " On what terms and conditions the lessees or any of them should be permitted to convert." Subsection 3 says, "Which of the said leases, if any, should be allowed to remain under the present tenure in order that the Native owners may compete for their possession"; and the order is, on what terms should the lessees be permitted to convert, and which of the leases should remain under the present tenure, if any; so that apparently the leases that are to remain under the present tenure are the exception. Apparently it is in contemplation that an order will be made to permit the bulk of those lessees to convert on some terms. Apparently there are two rules laid down on which the determination of the Commission is to be exercised respecting the leases which shall not be converted —(1) the areas which may be hereunder required by the Natives for their use and occupation, and (2) having regard to the particular interests of the Native owners in such areas and to their individual fitness for profitably using such lands. I submit it is abundantly clear from the order of reference istelf that it is in contemplation that the lessees shall be permitted to surrender and to convert on some terms, those terms being: entirely for the Commission. I am sure it is unnecessary to labour this point, but T would ask the Commissioners to note the phrase, " the particular

127

G.—2

128

interests and the individual fitness." Now I pass on. My friend confuses the claim of the Native and says the trustee —the nation—-has been guilty of a breach of trust. Upon this head I only propose to submit my points in bare form without any argument or comment. First of all, I desire to accept and indorse the remarks of the Public Trustee upon this aspect of the question, and I desire to say that in the settlement of the Native difficulties on this coast the Native lias been generously treated by the people, and that the legislation has been in his interests. Secondly, I desire to say that if my friend's contentions are correct, which I deny, they are irrelevant "and outside the scope of your inquiry. You are not called upon to inquire or to express any opinion as to the manner in which the Native or Natives have been treated in the past by the nation, by the legislation, by Parliament, or by the Public Trustee; and the introduction of matters which 1 think my friend said were more political than legal will not assist this Commission in its inquiry, and should not assist the Commission, because the Commission is bound by the scope of its reference. The introduction now of these philanthropic movements will not assist us in the inquiry before us, and will only tend to mislead the Natives. It ia well we should keep closely within the scope; and, lastly, on that head I would say this: that my clients have a right to have their case considered apart from any political rights or any other rights the Natives may have as against the nation, or against the Public Trustee, for any alleged malfeasance or misfeasance done to them in the past, because they were not parties to it. We have come here to inquire into the matters referred to this inquiry. Neither myself nor my clients have come here either prepared or desirous of doing anything else; and if I thought that any other factor was to be made a branch of this inquiry my efforts should at once cease, because I do say that there is the scope of our inquiry, there are our powers, and that is what we are dealing with. Lastly, sirs, it is not my province and no part of my work to make any suggestions to the Commission as to how they propose to deal with the rightful ambitions and longings of these Natives. I give place to no man in my admiration of the Native, but it is for the Commission to say how lie should be assisted in (he hope of devising some lawful and right scheme whereby he may be elevated and placed in a better position than he is to-day. I would invite the Commission to consider the large territory of land there is still left in the hands of the Public Trustee, and partly in the hands of the Natives themselves, for closer settlement. I do not think for a moment that the words of the president of the union appeal to the Commission. His words were, first of all, that they wanted to deal with the 18,000 acres, and if that was not sufficient they would come back for more. Now, I suggest in all humbleness that we ought to start helping him in regard to the lands that are indubitably his, and there I am at one with Dr. Pomare when he says the occupation-license system is a vicious system, and no good to the Natives. I understood Mr. Zachariah to say there are 45,000 or 50,000 acres either held under these licenses or just about to be open to the Native to occupy under these licenses. I do submit there is ample room there for the finest exercise of any beneficent legislation that can assist the Native to acquire and hold his own if he is fit for it. There is no reason why he should begin with the lands that, after all, we have made, because, put it bow you will, call it what you choose, call it a bargain or misleading the Native, these 18,000 acres have been made by my clients. They have been put. into the state of cultivation in which they are now by my clients, and for the Native now to ask to show his capacity as a farmer at the expense of the lessees— because I will show in a moment that it is at their expense —is no answer to the conundrum before us. What does he ask? He asks that he should be allowed to come in and to be assisted by the State to bid against the lessee. Does it occur to any one that that means ruin and confusion to the whole system and our whole social state? because if the Native thinks that the first step for him to acquire these freeholds is to become the owner of the leasehold estate, do we not know him well enough to know that he will go to that auction and bid, bid, bid no matter what it costs him? -All he has got to find is £5 for his improvements., and after that he cares nothing for his improvements. Why should he, so long as he outbids the European and gets his land? Why? Because that is the first step to acquiring the freehold. When he has got the land he will meet his fellow Crown, grantees and surrender the lease, and the Public Trustee is a mere intermediary. Mr. Bell: By legislation. Mr. Welsh: Quite so, by legislation. It is seriously suggested to us as a proper means of settlement —and this I am fain is a great problem and a great difficulty, and has troubled the minds of many people on the west coast for a very long day—that the Native should be encouraged to go to the auction. Ido not say that my friend's assistants are doing it with their eyes open —urging the Natives to go to auction and acquire the lands at whatever price they think. If, on the other hand, it is to be said, " No, we do not want that, but we want the Maori not to be defrauded —we want him to be permitted to go to auction and bid legitimately for what after all he has just as much right to bid for as you and I or any one else " —what rent has he to pay? First of all, he has to find £5 an acre to pay for the improvements, and then he has to pay a rent on the whole of the capital value less the £5 he has paid. Well, it is a pretty big hurdle. Mr. Kerr: And the purchase of stock. Mr. Welsh: That comes afterwards. Mr. Kerr: It means more capital on to the £5 an acre and the payment of rent. Mr. W T ehh: The pakeha has got it. there on the land—he is there with his stock and implements, and he is there with his £5. He is there knowing exactly what the land can do to the utmost farthing : he is living there all these years, he knows what treatment it requires and the special culture. But, apart from that, you heard what Dr. Fitchett, the Public Trustee, said, and I put it, can that be controverted? Are these leases in the interests of the community? Is it in the interests of the State or the people that we should permit, lands to be longer held under a tenure which is detrimental to the lessee, detrimental to the Native owner, and detrimental

Gh—2.

to the whole community? You invite a man to bid, under what tenure?—that he should be paid his £5 at the end of his twenty-one years. And what does he do? What ■ can you expect in all human nature? He put all the improvements that are necessary on to the land in the first two or three years to get it all out again, and after that the land can take care of itself. He will not spend another copper on it, and he will exhaust the thing to absolute bed-rock, and you cannot stop him under your lease. I invite you, sirs, to peruse the covenants in this lease framed in 1881, and, without any satirical comment, I submit that the lessor has no hold whatever under this lease. The lessee can farm the land just exactly as he chooses; he can be guilty of as bad farming as he desires, taking all he can out and puttingnothing back; and you have got no hold upon him ■whatever, whether he is a white man or a Maori. In conclusion, I venture to think that you will not permit this state of affairs to be perpetuated. I hold no brief here to ask you to do a wrong to the Native. If he can be permitted to come in and bid with his white brother for these leases without doing the white man a wrong and without doing himself a wrong, and if it is to his interest and the interests of the State and the community that these leases should be perpetuated, that is an end of the whole case; but if, on the other hand, to allow him to come in is only encouraging him to grasp at something you cannot give him —the freehold of his land —then I say it is better for him, and in his own interests as well as the interests of the State, that once and for all this question should be terminated. Ihe Act of 1892, let my friend call it what he will, has settled the whole of the difficulty along this coast. Under that Act these 1892 leases that are now running out will give the Native a source of revenue that he never imagined in his wildest dreams. The revaluations of 1892 on 5 per cent, will make the Native a rich man throughout Taranaki, and I say it without fear of contradiction. I say the Act of 1892 has been beneficent to the whole coast, and settled the whole of the Native difficulty. The Native should be encouraged to accept this tenure which tends to the advancement of the whole community. If the lessee is to have a fourth opportunity of coming in, let him pay for it—let him pay what is right and reasonable and equitable, and if he does not choose to avail himself of that right, then deal with the lands as you like. I do hope that this Commission will once and for all terminate the present system under which the lands are held, a system which was stigmatized by Dr. Fitchett as licentious, and I can find nothing to express it better. I know that one's sympathies, or, at any rate, the sympathy of any judicial mind, must lie towards the Native—-he has suffered a great deal. Any efforts to elevate him we all feel should be encouraged by every legitimate means; but I do submit, sirs, in conclusion, that although we are desirous of helping our brother of another race, those efforts should not carry us away and force us to do something that will not assist him. I say that before he attempts to carry on the present system of farming as it should be carried on nowadays he has a lot to learn. With what he has and what he will have, with his increased rents in the future, there is nothing to prevent all his ambitions being still satisfied, the Native himself being assisted and being helped, and the lessee under, this tenure of 1881 being given an opportunity of getting out of it at no unfair expense to the Native owner. Mr. Kerr: There is one question I should like to ask, Mr. Bell, to see what you have to say about it. In referring to these reserves you seek to impress upon the Commission that the reserves were given in fulfilment of engagements and distinct contracts made with the Natives. Mr. Bell: Yes, that is so. I do not know that I used the words " distinct contracts," but engagements. Mr. Kerr: Promises and engagements. Mr. Bell: Yes. Your Worship asked me that same question before, and I said the grants were for three reasons. Mr. Kerr: What I want to point out to you is this, and no reference has been made to it in the course of the investigation : You are aware that from time to time numerous compensation awards were given to the Natives in fulfilment of the engagements, and to my knowledge in one case there was an actually written agreement which was entered into by the agents of the Crown in dealing with the Natives. These compensation awards were ostensibly supposed to have been given in fulfilment of those arrangements that had been made. These reserves stand somewhat on a different basis, do they not? Mr. Bell: I can answer that. In taking the reserves we confiscated not only the lands of the Natives, but the land we had akeady granted to the Natives in some cases in return for their loyalty. We made promises to give grants of land to different tribes. A Commission sat and decided what ought to be done. They said these reserves ought to be made, and in Hone Pihama's case we gave him the freehold. In other cases we gave the Natives land to live upon, because they were then in a state of unrest, and we had to do something to make peace. The reasons for the grants were the giving-back of the lands we promised to give, and giving land in consideration of the Natives laying down arms. Mr. Kerr: With regard to the greater number of these reserves, were they not intended more as a provision for the Natives generally who had been deprived of their lands during the war—that is, the hostile Natives ? Mr. Bell: Well, your Worships will be able to judge from the reports of the Eoyal Commission. It seems to me that that is not so. What we did in giving back these lands was done in almost all cases in the fulfilment of promises, -sbecause we saw we had deprived the Native of what we had given him, or because we had to make peace with the tribes.. Mr. Kerr: It has been stated that the acquiring of these leases when they fall in will be a step towards the final acquisition of the freehold. What have you to say to* the view that, at any rate, so long as the land remains vested in the Public Trustee he, at" any rate, will be able to protect the Natives against their possible improvidence? Mr. Bell: I did not argue before you that the Native ought to get the freehold. All I said was that the Native contends he should have the freehold. That, question is not in dispute. He realizes that he cannot even ask for the freehold until he has shown that he has come of age, and he says that his chance of showing that he has come of age is to get

17— G. 2.

129

a.—2.

on to the land and work it. Supposing you give him a better tenure on the other part of the reserve kept for him, he can show he has come of age there, but by that time the 18,000 acres would be gone for good. My friend talks a great deal about the danger of their having a chance of the freehold; and 1 have to admit that the Natives say all along we hope one of these days to get our lands back —we are not going to remain lunatics and minors all our lives, but we intend to get the freehold back. The Natives themselves say that they believe they are even now of age, but they realize they have to show it. Of course, if the nation will take it for granted the Maori will be pleased to agree, but they recognize it is reasonable for the nation to demand that they shall show they are of age before anything is done. Mr. Kerr: There is one question which has not been dealt with with regard to the Natives themselves. The grants show that a certain limited number only would be able to bid for these leases, where there are perhaps two or three or seven in a grant. What do you suggest should be done in the case of Natives where there are two hundred or three hundred in a grant? Mr. Bell: I hope your Worship has not thought 1 have been arguing that only the Natives iv a particular grant should be able to bid. All the Natives ask for is that the Native and the pakeha, wherever the Native comes from, should have the opportunity of bidding at every auction. Mr. Kerr: The only thing is in reference to the statement made by Dr. Fitchett. It is quite obvious that that cross-entry he was referring to can only refer to about seven or eight Natives in a grant. Mr. Bell: Ido not think there is anything in the cross-entry point. A man would have to pay his rent except in very isolated cases. Now, with reference to the finance question, my friend put a point which troubled me considerably for a number of days, but 1 submit the conclusion he draws is wrong. The provision in the lease is this : that all the improvements are to be valued at the end of each period, and that then the man is to get compensation up to £5. Suppose at the end of one period there is £9 worth of improvements on the land, an incoming tenant goes in and pays £5. Well, at the end of his term, supposing he puts no improvements on at all and the depreciation on the improvements is 20 per cent., if my friend's contention were right the second tenant w-ould only be entitled to £4, as they had depreciated, but as a matter of fact he is entitled to £5. He pays his rent on everything over £5, and what the lease says is this: "Within three months before the determination of this demise by efliuxion of time all such buildings and fixtures, including fencing, on the land hereby demised as shall be deemed to be substantial improvements under the regulations made under the said Act." Mr. Welsh: That is the point. Mr. Bell: Only substantial improvements are compensated for —they shall all be valued. Mr. Kerr: Except under the Act of 1910. Mr. Bell: It is not limited to buildings, fixtures, and fences now, but improvements which are substantial improvements within the definition, and then the incoming tenant pays £5. Mr. Welsh: Read the whole section. You say he has to pay for everything. Mr. Bell: I do not say he has to pay for everything. 1 said all improvements are to be valued, and then he is paid £5, but he is paid on his improvements. Supposing there has been depreciation, the improvements over £5 are backing up the £5. If he goes in, and there are £9 worth of improvements on his land, and the depreciation is 20 per cent., he does not, as my friend suggests, get £4, but £5, because all the depreciation is taken off the balance above £5, so that you have your security backing up a certain return of £5. If the improvements are worth £8, or whatever it is, so long as you have the security the loan is perfectly safe. The man is going to receive his £5 guaranteed by improvements which are then on the land —the margin of the actual improvements on the land above the £5 which he is going to be paid. Mr. Welsh: 1 must reply to that. If any one takes the trouble to read the lease you will see it says, "All such buildings and fixtures, including fencing, on the land hereby demised as shall be deemed to be substantial improvements under the regulations made under the said Act shall be valued by arbitration in the manner hereinafter mentioned; and a fresh lease of the said land for the same period and on the same conditions as this lease shall be offered for sale by public tender, subject to the payment by the incoming tenant to the lessee of the valuation so to be ascertained as aforesaid." Now, if my friend's contention is correct, that the valuation is to be on all improvements without limit, then the lessee has to be paid for all improvements without limit, because it says, ".subject to the payment by the incoming tenant to the lessee of the valuation so to be ascertained as aforesaid " —not £5 of valuation, but " of the valuation to be ascertained as aforesaid." He has to be paid for the amount of the valuation so to be ascertained as aforesaid, and the valuation so to be ascertained are the-substantial improvements under the regulations which are to be valued, and the limit of those substantial improvements under the regulations is £5, and it is that which the lessee has to be paid for. Mr. Kerr: But has not that been amended? Mr. Welsh: Yes, my friend and I are quite at one in that. In regard to the question of depreciation at the end of the term, he gets exactly what he got when he had his lease. When he got his lease he was entitled to be paid £5 for his improvements. They might have been £5 per acre. The question is, What are the improvements worth at the time the lease ends? and it says that the lease is to be for the same period and on the same conditions as this lease. Mr. Kerr: Everything depends on what the improvements are worth at the end of the term. Mr. Welsh: Yes, that is the point. [Statements from dairy factories showing number of Native suppliers put in, Exhibit L.j The Chairman: In reference to what counsel have said, speaking on behalf of Mr. Kerr and myself, I can say we have been very pleased indeed at the able manner in which you have carried out your duties before the Commission. We can assure you that, in return for the care both you and those who have been assisting you in the matter nave taken, we shall to the best of our ability exhibit as great a care in the consideration of it. We can assure you that the position we will take up will be an absolutely neutral one, with the object of securing a judicial and equitable solution of the matter as far as we possibly can.

130

a.—2.

EXHIBITS.

EXHIBIT A. Names of Lessees by whom Mr. Welsh is instructed to appear before the Commission under the West Coast Settlement Reserves Act, 1881. R. Morris. P. Fleming. Mrs. R. Watts. James McKenzie. R. McLean. J. Young. , T. C. Hughson. J. M. Kickey. R. Warner. D. T. Leahy. S. Andrews. T. Graham. E. A. Mitchell. W. Kelly. " Robert Affleck. Charles Humphries. M. Fennell. William Pentelow. F. J. V. R. Affleck. Mrs. C. Humphries Thomas Tait. P. Cook. S. T. Cox. Mr. Grant. H. E. Candy. H. P. Best George Petoh. Mr. Stephenson. C. G. King. S. Wells. Johanna Joyce. John Clarke. T. McKenzie. George A. Mehrtens. Arthur Newell. F. W. Matthews. H. O'Rorke. Alfred Clothier. R. Palmer. W. D. Foreman. D. A. Poole. W. C. Dudley. C. Malcolm. Edward Hurley.

EXHIBIT B. [Statement showing that Tamaka Awarua received from the Tawhiti Dairy Factory for milk supplied during eight months the sum of £513 9s.]

EXHIBIT C. [Statement showing that Rangitaura Kahui received from the Waitara Dairy Factory for milk supplied during nine months £243 17s. 6d.]

EXHIBIT D. [Receipts produced for £3 10s. 9d., being rates paid by Rangitaura Kahui to the Taranaki County Council.]

EXHIBIT E. [Statement produced showing that Palmnga Tumahua received from the Kaupokonui Dairy Factory for milk supplied during nine months £235 3s. Id.]

EXHIBITS F AND G. [Statement produced showing that Eriwata received from the Normanby and Ararata Dairy Factories the sum of £483 9s. 3d. for milk supplied during eighteen months.]

EXHIBIT H. To whom it may concern. Ararata, 24th May, 1912. This is to certify that Eriwata has delivered good and clean milk to this factory since I have been in charge, since 27th September, 1910. Yours faithfully, P. A. LIJNDBERG, Manager, Ararata Dairy Company, Ararata.

EXHIBIT J. The West Coast Settlement Reserves Acts Amendment Act, 1910 Whereas under the West Coast Settlement Reserves Act, 1881, and the West Coast Settlement Reserves Act, 1887, leases have from time to time been granted by the Public Trustee of lands within the area described in the Schedule to the said first-mentioned Act : And whereas many of the lessees or assignees of such leases did not avail themselves of the various statutory provisions from time to time enacted enabling perpetually renewable leases to be granted to them

18— G. 2.

131

G.—2.

under the provisions of the West Coast Settlement Reserves Act, 1892 : And whereas the area comprised in such leases as were not made perpetually renewable under the last-mentioned Act (according to the Public Trust Office Report for 1909 presented to both Houses of the General Assembly —8.-9 a) amounts in aIJ to 18,399 acres : And whereas many of the Native grantees of the land comprised in such leases are desirous of having an opportunity on the expiration of such leases of occupying and farming the lands comprised therein : And whereas it is desirable, in the interests of the Native grantees and their families, that as the said leases expire the Native grantees of the lands comprised therein should be encouraged in efforts of-industry and selfhelp, and should be enabled to resume and to have the control and management of the said lands subject as is hereafter provided : Bk it therefore enacted by the Genera] Assembly of New Zealand and by the authority of the same as follows: — 1. The Short Title of this Act is the West Coast Settlement Reserves Act, 1910. 2. Whenever any lease granted under the West Coast Settlement Reserves Act, 1881, or the West Coast Settlement Reserves Act Amendment Act, 1887 (not being a lease which is perpetually renewable undei the West Coast Settlement Reserves Act, 1892), shall expire, the land comprised in such lease shall revest in the Native grantees thereof and their successors, subject however to any restrictions on alienation to which the land was by the terms of the Crown grant thereof expressed to be subject, and subject also to a charge in favour of the Public Trustee for the amount of any compensation which shall by law be payable to the outgoing tenant, his executors, administrators, or assigns, under the terms of the lease thereof. 3. The Public Trustee shall take all necessary steps to ascertain the amount of such compensation (if any) so payable, and shall pay the same out of whatever funds may be available to him for the purpose to the person ov persons entitled to payment of the same. 4. The Public Trustee shall in respect of every such payment issue a memorial of charge stating the amount paid to the outgoing tenant, his executors, administrators, or assigns, for compensation as aforesaid, after giving credit to the Native owners for any moneys held by him on their behalf, and that such amount is a first charge on the lands comprised in the lease in respect of which such compensation was paid and described in such memorial, and that the same is repayable by the Native grantees and their successors, together with interest thereon computed from the date of such payment by equal half-yearly instalments at the rate of five pounds per centum per annum, of which four pounds ten shillings per centum shall be in respect of interest and ten shillings per centum in respect of principal, according to the table of repayments applied to mortgages to the Advances to Settlers Department, and such memorial shall state the half-yearly dates on which such half-yearly sums of principal and interest shall be payable by the Native owners to the Public Trustee. 5. Every memorial of charge when signed and sealed by the Public Trustee shall be registered against the land described therein by the Registrar of Deeds or District Land Registrar at New Plymouth, as the case may be, and when so registered shall have the same force and effect as if the Native grantees and their successors had executed a valid mortgage to the Public Trustee of the lands therein described to secure the repayment of the principal and interest moneys thereby expressed to be due, and the power of sale and all other powers expressed by the Property Law Act, 1908, or the Land Transfer Act, 1908, as the case may be, shall be implied in each such memorial, and shall have the same effect and operation as if the same were a mortgage executed as aforesaid containing the said powers. 6. The Native Land Court shall have jurisdiction from, time to time according to its usual practice to partition the said lands among the Native owners thereof, but no such partition shall take effect until the expiry of the lease (if any) to which the land is subject, and the titles to issue to Native owners pursuant to such partition shall be subject to the same restrictions as are expressed in the grant from the Crown or in the original certificate of title under the Land Transfer Act of the land so partitioned. 7. No partition shall prejudice the Public Trustee's charge for money paid by way of compensation as aforesaid, but the Public Trustee, if he shall be satisfied to do so, may apportion any such charge among the various subdivisions of the land charged, and register separate memorials according to such apportionment if the Native owner or owners of any subdivision shall request him to do so. 8. That in the event of any tenant under any lease as aforesaid refusing or failing to give up possession of the lands comprised in his lease or any part thereof on the expiration or determination thereof, or in the event of any such tenant being in default on the expiration or determination of his lease in payment of rent or in the performance or observance of any express or implied covenant on his part, or in the event of any such tenant doing an injury to the reversion either before or after the expiry of his lease, the Public Trustee is hereby empowered and authorized to commence and prosecute, submit to arbitration, or compromise, such actions, suits, claims, and proceedings as he may deem appropriate for the vindication of the rights of the Native owners in respect of the said lands, or for the recovery of possession thereof or of the rents due, or for double rent in the case of a tenant holding over, or for damages, costs, and expenses, as the case may be. 9. Notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained, the Public Trustee shall have power, in case any of the said lands shall bo owned by Natives under disability, to lease the same for the benefit of such Natives for any term not exceeding twenty-one years in possession, at such rents and upon such terms and conditions as to him shall seem best in the interests of such Natives; but in granting any such lease the Public Trustee shall in the case of minorß have regard to the date of the coming of age of such minor.

132

G.— 2

10. The provisions of this Act shall apply to all lands within the area described in the Schedule to the West Coast Settlement Reserves Act, 1881, whether leased or not, excepting lands held under leases perpetually renewable in accordance with the provisions of the West Coast Settlement Reserves Act, 1892. 11. The Native Land Court may, on the application of the owners of any land within the said area, order that any Native (whose name in the opinion of the said owners ought to have been included in the list of owners of such land) be henceforth an owner in common with the original owners or their successors for such estate or interest as the Native owners for the time being shall approve. Every order made under this section shall vest such interest in such Native so included, and may be registered against the title to such land. 12. And whereas certain Natives who were not Native owners of any lands within the area aforesaid have resided for many years at or near Parihaka, and have lost their rights to their lands elsewhere : Be it enacted, &c, that the Native Land Court is hereby empowered on the application of any Native to hold an inquiry and ascertain the names of such Natives and the condition thereof respectively, and report thereon generally to the Native Minister, and may make such recommendations as to the permanent settlement of such Natives as may appear just.

EXHIBIT K. Transper. 28th May, 1911. Section 17, Block 5, Cape Survey District: 114 acres. Lease No. 645 (under Act of 1881). Consideration, £800. Mary Ann Gray and Benjamin Gray to William Grant. (Searched by W. H. D. Bell.)

EXHIBIT L. [Statements produced showing number of Natives supplying dairy factories with milk, as follows : Kaupokonui, 9; Ararata, 2; Hawera, 14; Normanby, 3; Mells, 3; Rata, 6; Joll's, 14; Opunake, 5; Oaonui, 17; Riverdale, 9; Tikorangi, 2; Waitara, 7; North Taranaki, 4; Oakura, 1; Mangorei, 3; Okato and Puniho, 5; Bell Block, 7.] Approximate Cnut of Paper. —Preparation, not given ; printing (1.200 copies), £6b. I

By Authority : John Mackay. Government Printer, Wellington.—l9l2. Price 2s. 6rf,]

133