19

G.—s

to Mr. Heale on the former of those dates was anything but verbal, and it does not appear to us to be sufficiently explained why no written applications were made until the 19th May. Until Mr. Wilson got a telegram from the Native Minister on the 10th May on the subject, he does not seem to have recognized Mr. Baker as Deputy Inspector, and yet, on the 25th February, Mr. Heale told Mr. Wilson that Mr. Baker represented him as Deputy Inspector of Surveys, and seemed to anticipate a difficulty in the department, owing to the manner in which Mr. Simpson was employed on surveys by Mr. Wilson. But he seems to have given Mr. Wilson no specific information as to going on with Simpson or not as before. Mr. Wilson having been thus informed of Mr. Baker's position on the 25th February, the very day after his appointment, it does not appear why Mr. Heale, on the 19th April, should have made an "apology," as Mr. Wilson has called it, for information not having been supplied as to the survey regulations, and we must regard such apology as being only a polite expression of regret on Mr. Heale's part if any misunderstanding had occurred. Mr. Wilson says that during the time he had to complain of not getting surveyors, and when he was telegraphing to the Native Minister about some secret influence which obstructed him, he made no application to Mr. Baker on the subject. He did not think it his business to go to Mr. Baker and ask for any explanation of the delay. This view of the matter seems to us very difficult to understand, and we are not surprised to find that its adoption by Mr. Wilson should have occasioned him some delay in getting his wishes attended to. Of the delay after the 19th May, the only explanation given is the general statement of Mr. Baker that upon receipt of written applications the surveys were always pushed on as quickly as possible. The employment of Simpson on a different business was, no doubt, an inconvenience to Mr. Wilson, but it was a matter fairly within the discretion of the head of the department. Upon the whole we can find no evidence that the delay in supplying surveyors was caused by any wrong motive, or any desire to obstruct on the part of any officer connected with the department; or that there was any secret influence at work against Mr. Wilson; or that there was any undue delay which cannot be in part accounted for by contributory negligence on his own part. Mr. Wilson's next complaint on the subject of surveys is that Mr. Locke gave authority for surveys, on behalf of rival purchasers, over lands for which he knew that Mr. Wilson was in negotiation. The lands especially referred to are Waingaromia and Tuakau. The following remarks apply to the former of these: —Mr. Wilson says that some time between Mr. Locke's arrival at Poverty Bay, in February, 1875, and the month of April, he (Mr. Locke) gave authority to Pita te Huhu, the Native who was professing to sell to Cooper, to have the land surveyed, Mr. Wilson having previously informed Mr. Locke of his negotiations. This statement is not strictly correct. It is certain that application was made to Mr. Locke for authority to survey these lands as far back as the year 1873. Mr. Locke approved of the application, but expressed some doubt as to his power to give the necessary authority. He promised to make arrangements if possible, and informed Mr. Campion that there would probably be some surveys for him to undertake. This being the case, we cannot see any reason whatever why the subsequent negotiations of Mr. Wilson with parties setting up an adverse claim to that of Pita te Huhu should deprive the latter of the survey for which he had applied so long before. After Mr. Locke's arrival at Poverty Bay, in February, 1575, and when the Survey Department was taken over by Mr. Baker, Mr. Locke no doubt approved of the survey, which he had approved of fifteen months before ; and in carrying out that survey upon the original application of Pita te Huhu, we cannot see that any wrong was done to any one. This complaint of Mr. Wilson's seems to affect Mr. Locke rather than Mr. Eogan ; but Mr. Wilson's report so plainly implies that the Native Land Court and the District Officer have been in league against him in the interests of some other favoured purchasers, that it was impossible for us to have an adequate apprehension of the subject without going into this part of it. The other block of land of which Mr. Locke is said to have wrongly authorized the survey is Tuakau. We have taken no evidence relating to the block, because Mr. Locke has already fully explained his reasons for what he did in his memoranda of the 25th May and 25th August, 1876, and because no attempt has been made to impugn, by evidence, his good faith and good intentions in the matter. Our opinion is that Mr. Wilson has no good cause of complaint on the ground that wrongful authority has been given to survey lands in the interest of parties antagonistical to his purchases. On the 7th July, 1876, Mr. Wilson had an interview with Mr. Locke and Captain Bead. At this interview a proposal to buy out Cooper, who was opposing Mr. Wilson in the purchase of Waingaromia, was discussed. Whether at that time Captain- Head had advanced money to Cooper does not appear, but he certainly did so afterwards. The proposal to buy out Cooper came to nothing —Mr. Wilson says, because he would not entertain it; Mr. Locke says, because Cooper's demands were exorbitant. However this may be, it seems clear that Mr. Locke thought Cooper's claims likely to prove a serious obstacle to Mr. Wilson's negotiations, and that this proposal was a hondficle effort on his part to facilitate matters for the Government purchaser. Tet Mr. Wilson, by the manner in which he mentions this interview in his report, suggests in the plainest way that the District Officer was leagued with Cooper and Read against him. At 'the time these things were going on the Native Land Court was sitting. The session began on the 18th June, and went on until the end of July. On the list of causes for hearing at that Court was a block of land called Waingaromia. This land, was gazetted on the application of Pita te Huhu, the same Native who had applied to Mr. Locke to have it surveyed in 1873. The notice in the Kahiti is dated the 14th May, and the boundaries of the land are very imperfectly set forth. If the description in that Gazette is compared with the block marked Waingaromia (without number) in the map, it will be found that the boundary is sufficiently defined to exclude the block on the eastern side called Waingaromia No. 3, but that it stops abruptly at a point called Toromiro, and continues no farther in a northerly direction. But the surveyors employed for Pita te Huhu had extended their survey so as to take in lands which were the subject of negotiations by Mr. Wilson. Mr. Cooper, who was purchasing from Pita te Huhu, alleges that the Gazette notice of 14th May was not the one which he applied for to Mr. Locke in 1873. He says that his first application to Mr. Locke comprised the lands which were afterwards taken in by the surveyors, and Mr. Locke thinks that this may have been the case, although no such document can be 3—G. 5.