LUNDON AND WHITAKER COMMITTEE.

11

H.—No. 4

Carleton,

rival, claimants to the land." It is true that the Supreme Court would have put an end to the matter Mr. in dispute at once, but by giving the land to neither, under the 73rd clause of the Constitution Act, petitioners would have been turned out of Court, and Graham left as he was, if a preferable title could not be set up. In page 15, I read these words : —" Had the evidence they heard, and the statements made at the time by apparently respectable persons, been correct, the decision of the Committee, based upon them, would have been equitable. But the members of the House, and of its Committee, were cruelly misled by statements which will afterwards appear to have been utterly without foundation." I say that it is not true that the Committee on the Bill were misled by any statements made before them. It is for petitioners to point out which of those statements were incorrect. I have the evidence before me. Lundon complains in the Committee on Evidence of what was never said before the Committee on the Bill. Whitaker complains that representations might be held to mean misrepresentations. I find the following w'ords in Mr. Whitaker's evidence before the Committee on Evidence, Ist. September, 1869 : —■" It is mainly as to the words 'by representations,' which seem to impute somewhat of fraud to myself, that I wish to speak." He also says:—" If' misrepresentations' are meant, I most emphatically deny it, because the whole thing was laid before the Natives." Mr. Lundon, before the same Committee, complains that Mr. O'Keefe says that he (Lundon) "had offered a large sum of money to the Natives to get them to sign." Mr. O'Keefe did not say so; he said that a Native told him so. In page 16, I find these words: —"Two clauses were prepared to be introduced as an amendment into this Bill;" and further on, in page 17, I find these words: —" These clauses were referred to a Select Committee." It is not true that these clauses were referred to a Select Committee. The clauses were drafted in the Committee—clause 8, by Mr. Howorth. In page 22 is the following: —" There can be no question in the mind of anyone perusing the later debates on the Native Lands Bill that the false accusations of Mr. De Hirsch and others were the incentive to those members who were anxious to push the Bill forward, to use such strenuous endeavours to make it law during the Session. Mr. Carleton, indeed, contended that however those accusations might have shocked the House, the Bill was passed in accordance with the principle of morality involved in the acquiring of property by Messrs. Lundon and Whitaker, which was previously in the possession of another. But the speeches of the different members who spoke in favour of the inserted clauses clearly disprove this idea, and show conclusively that the sole thought in the minds of members was to remedy a grievous wrong done his opponents by Mr. F. A. Whitaker, in acquiring land in reference to which he had been their legal adviser. And honorable members who were at that time in Wellington will, no doubt, remembering the extreme indignation that was felt, endorse the statement that their sole bias in favor of one party or another, arose from the grievously false allegations by which they were wilfully misled. Had these allegations been true, their conduct was not only justifiable, but just, and no blame can attach to any, if credence was placed in the solemn declaration of an individual apparently of good position and reliability." I say that the speeches clearly prove what I assert, as may be seen by reference to " Hansard." It is true, indeed, that a professional gentleman on the Committee of Evidence took exception to Mr. Whitaker's professional conduct; but this was based not upon the original deed, but upon the deed of the 15th February, 1869, which bears Mr. Whitaker's signature. I am not professional, and am not competent to form an opinion. It is also true that Mr. Dillon Bell, an opponent of clauses 8 and 9, raised a new issue before the House, that of fraud alleged; but the House was not thereby diverted from the true question, the double dealing with the natives —a transaction afterwards described by a Judge of the Native Lands Court, as " repugnant both to private and public morality." But the House could not fall into the error complained of by petitioners, seeing that De Hirsch himself had given evidence to the contrary before the Committee on Evidence, thereby, in effect, amending his affidavit. I refer the Committee to question 51 in the Report on Evidence. I find in page 23 the following words:—" They had, as has been said, acquired their title in strict conformity with the different Statutes then in force relating to Native lands; but by this section an entire alteration in law was effected, rendering their forethought of no avail." It is not true that they acquired their title in conformity with tho different Statutes then in force, for the Constitution Act was one of them. In page 25, I find the following words: —"The great strength of Messrs. Lundon and Whitaker's case lay in the unassailable legal position in which they stood." It is not true that their position was unassailable, for it has been ruled " that the leases to Messrs Whitaker and Lundon, having been made before the extinction of the Native title, are contrary to the common law, and in disobedience of the Constitution Act, and therefore void; and as the claim of these gentlemen for consideration rests entirely on the assumed legality of their position, their right to interfere with the consideration of the application now before the Court cannot be allowed." Also —" I have no doubt in my mind, therefore, that the opposition having failed to establish its own legal position, this Court will be carrying out the intention of the Legislature by making an order as asked for, and I so determine. I refrain from expressing any opinion as to wh'ether I should have thought proper or otherwise to make this order, if the opponents had succeeded in establishing an unassailable legal right." The conclusion to be drawn is this: That neither the Committee on the Bill nor tho House were influenced by any misrepresentations, and that before a claim for compensation can be entertained, the judgment of the Native Lands Co rt must be upset. Witness was thanked, and withdrew.

APPENDIX. Statement made by Mr. Travers before the Committee. Friday, 29th September, 1871. Mr. Travers made a statement in reference to certain written issues which had been agreed to by the Committee. *«*|* ■-■m^s 1. Had the petitioners a"legal title to the land in question when the Act of 1869 was passed? This is a question upon which_the Committee will, no doubt, be satisfied, from the written admission of