a.-a

8

them there was no other to do it. Mr. Bonar says himself that his private interests have suffered through the settlement, that his interest in the " Waipara " was used to obtain her services for the settlement at a cheaper rate than the Government could have obtained similar services for in any other quarter, and that but for the " Waipara" the expense of these services would have been 50 per cent, greater. AYe know of no reason to doubt tho correctness of this statement, nor has a scintilla of evidence been adduced to show that Mr. Bonar, in his management of the settlement, was ever influenced by any other motive than the desire to promote its welfare. The matters which we havo been discussing, although we have brought them within the terms, scarcely fall within tho intention of Mr. Murdoch's second allegation which we are now considering. Ho had a grievance of his own, which we shall now dispose of, to avoid tho necessity of noticing it when it turns up again, as it does under some of the subsequent heads. Mr. Murdoch says that he could himself have supplied goods to the settlers much cheaper than the price at the Government store. In answer to tlie question why he did not do so, he gives the following reasons : that the Resident Agent would not pay the settlers cash, but only orders payable at the Government store ; that he resented demands for cash, and refused work to those who "made them ; and that he put direct obstacles in the w\ay of Mr. Murdoch when he wished to supply the settlers with meat. Now we have already explained how the system of cheques came to be adopted, and there is no doubt that,cash was scarce in the settlement up to the time when Mr. Marks took over the Government store. But there is no proof of the assertion that the Eesident Agent showed animus against those who did not like the cheque system, although we may presume that if there were any (of which we have no proof) who would not take work on the customary conditions they would not get it at all. It is not true, as we have said before, that orders were given on any particular store. Both the gangers' certificates for progress payments, and the cheques given in final settlement, might be presented to any one who chose to receive them. There was nothing whatever to hinder Mr. Murdoch from giving the settlers beef or flour in return for their cheques if the matter could be agreed upon between the parties ; but we think tho infrequency of such dealings may be partly accounted for by the preference of Mr. Murdoch on the one side for cash, and of tho settlers on the other for credit. The supposed impediments which the Eesident Agent put in the way of Mr. Murdoch when he wished to supply the settlers with beef and mutton are the theme of a chronic complaint which forms a sort of back-ground to all Mr. Murdoch's statements and evidence. He complains that Mr. Macfarlane would not facilitate the sale of beef except at the Government store, that he would not guarantee the payment of Mr. Murdoch's meat accounts by charging the settlers with them in their store pass-books, and that arrangements for the above purposes were afterwards repudiated by him. It would doubtless have much facilitated Mr. Murdoch's business if all his book debts could have been guaranteed by being made a firsst charge on the settlers' wages, whatever detriment this may have caused to the Government store account, but we are not aware that it was the duty of the Eesident Agent to forward his views in this respect. As a matter of fact, however, Mr. Macfarlane did what he could in this direction so far as he thought it prudent to do so. Mr. Murdoch's beef was entered in the pass-books of the settlers, and a regular arrangement was made by Mr. Macfarlane for the supply of meat by Mr. Murdoch and a Mr. Bobineon. The arrangement was afterwards put an end to by tho Eesident Agent, because Mr. Murdoch did not conform to his plans for supplying the Okuru settlers, but this was only two or three months before it must in any case have terminated by the transfer of the store to private hands. Our opinion upon this subject is that, of Mr. Murdoch's charges against the Eesident Agent in connection with the store, tho supply of meat, the orders, and the truck question generally, the greater part is unfounded, and the remainder frivolous. Complaint No. 3; Settlers getting goods instead cf cash. —" Cash payment refused settlers, who wore compelled to take goods in payment for work. A£2 order given complainant was refused payment. He offered to take half cash, and offer refused." The first part of this allegation requires no further remark, AVith reference to the latter part of the statement, a copy of the order referred to is attached to the evidence. It is an order for cash, instead of a certificate for work done, signed by the overseer. Such orders were not recognized by Mr. Macfarlane, being iv a form which he considered objectionable. He therefore refused to countersign it, and seems to have told Mr. Murdoch " he must do the same as others," or something to that effect. In these words, and in this refusal to countersign tho order, Mr. Murdoch seems to have detected, by some process of reasoning which he has failed to make clear to us, a disposition on the part of the Eesident Agent to maintain a system of truck for the benefit of Mr. Marks, a disposition in proof of which we have vainly sought for any evidence whatever. This particular instance is only worth mentioning as illustrating tho kind of construction which Mr. Murdoch put upon the most simple things which were done and said, as well as his disposition to treasure up every little thing which he thought might be one day used against the Eesident Agent: for Mr. Murdoch says he has never yet been credited with the £2 mentioned in this order, a statement which we think open to doubt, but the truth of which we have not been asked to determine. Assuming, however, as we fairly may, that Mr. Murdoch believes that this sum has not been paid to him, wo find him saying in his evidence, " The pay-day was the 19th March, and I believe if I had presented it on that day I should have got the money. I kept tho order back to hold as evidence." Complaint No. 4.—" Complainant was willing to supply settlers with beef, but Eesident Agent refused to permit him to do so, although his charge was lower than that charged by the Government." This relates to the beef question, and has been already sufficiently discussed. Complaint No. 5. —" That contracts accepted by complainant were altered after being accepted, and that others were given to Bay, Moth, and Birch, the specifications of which were altered after being offered to, and declined by, complainant." Under this charge one or two instances were adduced. In one case a contract was declined by Murdoch and let to other parties. He alleges that the specifications were altered in favour of the other persons. This is denied, and is not proved. In another case, after Murdoch had agreed to take