13

H.—l4

page 520. Cadman not interested in Native land.] After that Mr. Shera spoke for five minutes. Then Cadman spoke—he had charge of the Bill—he did not deny what Lawry had said, or qualify it. In the House it was generally understood and believed what Lawry had said. [Paragraph 31 of first memorandum objected to by Stout.] Sir George Grey on more than one occasion has told me frequently that he was assured by Mr. Seddon, on the authority of Mr. Cadman, that Mr. Cadman, while Native Minister, had nothing to do in the purchase of Native land. 258. During the taking the evidence in the Commission did you have sitting at Danevirke ?— Yes; not a regular sitting, but the Commission being there, we took evidence. [Commission Eeport, page 136.] We examined Mr. James Alladyce. He said all the land was Maori land, held in large blocks, and that the land ought to be obtained by the Government, and cut up for the settlement of the people, as the young people were leaving the district, as they could not get land to settle upon. He stated that for moderate-sized farms people would give £1 10s. per acre, while land close to the town would fetch £5 an acre at auction. That there was no Crown land available nearer than Weber, twenty-three or twenty-four miles away. That nearly all taken up. He said that there was a great demand for land. 259. Turn to page 167 of the report ? —Sir Robert Stout's evidence thereupon: He spoke strongly in favour of Committees and Boards. The clauses in the Bill were framed on his evidence. At page 168 his words were much stronger. Almost the words of Sir Eobert Stout's suggestions, at page 170, are contained in the clauses. Sir Eohert Stout also spoke strongly as to the equitable owners —that that should be immediately attended to. 260. As to the sale of Umutaoroa to Cadman and Smith. Did you have any conversation with any one about it ?—Mr. Hose spoke to me, about six weeks ago, after the memorandum. [Objection made as to Eose's statement to Eecs as to agency.] I was anxious to assist the Native Minister in passing Native measures. I assisted him in a Bill for purchasing land for the Crown, and also the West Coast Settlement Reserves of Mr. Ballance. I opposed Mr. Cadman's Bill; it was a most pernicious Bill. .260 a. 10th September, 1891. Did not Mr. Cadman say you were opposing the Government ? — [Hansard, vol. lxxiv., p. 494.] Mr. Carroll and Mr. Ballance upheld what I had done to assist the Government. 261. You spoke ?—£es ; about the appointment of the Committee. [See speeches of Carroll and Ballance, pages 494, 495.] As to proposing Special Committee to draw Bill. 262. July 12, 1892. [Hansard, vol. lxxv., p. 393.] You again showed your desire to assist?— I said I regretted that Cadman had spoken against me. Spoke as to treating private Bill on Tahoraiti. I went out of the Committee so as not to appear that I was acting on personal grounds as to the Tahoraiti Bill, and so that passed. I objected to a few cases being picked out, because that would prevent any general measure. I had no personal feeling. I knew if I did not accept portfolio Mr. Cadman would be appointed. The Native-land difficulties are now greater than they were ; difficulties have come to light from cases before the Court of Appeal. I sent a memorandum to the Government —the Government distributed this to the legal profession, pointing out that things were getting more and more serious. 263. At present time ?—Yes. 264. At the end of last year and beginning of this year, you had been in communication with the Premier as to Native-land reforms ? —Yes. 265. And proposed a special session ? —Mr. Ballance did not agree to that. He favoured reforms. I consider the matter of first importance to the people and Natives of New Zealand. 266. In reply to a letter from you to Mr. Ballance, did you get this letter from Mr. Ballance ? — Yes ; 3rd March, 1892. 267. Did you take any other measures to get reforms ? —Yes. I started the Native Land Laws Reform League. I started that in Auckland, and held meetings elsewhere. 268. What is the reason of your writing the first of these letters to the Premier ? —After the Tahoraite Bill passed, and just towards end of the session, two or three of the members of the House —Mr. Buckland one—sent up to Napier, and had searches made in the register, in consequence of a paragraph in the Hawke's Bay Herald, that Smith and Cadman had completed their title to the block of land in Danevirke. On the last day of the session Mr. Buckland was showing the result of the search in the lobbies of the House, by which it did appear that Smith and Cadman had obtained interest in this land. But I found that Mr. W. C. Smith and Mr. Shera were accusing me of opposing the Tahoraite Bill. There was a speech of Mr. Smith's at Danevirke, that he had succeeded in passing the Bill in spite of all opposition. I held a meeting at Napier, at which Mr. Smith attended ; and he strongly opposed the Native Land Laws Reform League and its proposals, and I felt there must have been some object in opposing—that there must have been some motive all through for such peculiar opposition. I then inquired as to the alleged land transactions. I was perfectly under the belief that Mr. Cadman while Native Minister had had nothing to do with Native lands. If I had known it during the session, I would have taken proceedings in the House at once, because I think it highly improper for a Native Minister or any member to do with such acquisitions. I made inquiries. I had searches made, and found that the title to the block had been completed, nominally in Mr. Smith's name. The later shares his—but evidently the joint property of both, as appears by the mortgage to the bank. Then I saw the figures of the valuation in the Land Transfer Department. Mr. Horace Baker was not likely to make excessive valuation, and I heard what this land was selling for, and what land at Danevirke was selling for. I then wrote to Mr. Ballance a copy of the letter of 10th March, and sent copy to Mr. Cadman same day. I state fully the reasons I had for sending the memorandum to Mr. Ballance. I received answer from Mr. Ballance on 13th March: "You are misinformed." This confirmed me in the opinion that Mr. Cadman had denied the acquisition of Native land to his colleagues. After the receipt of the reply from the Premier I had asked for inquiry. I waited for a fortnight; from what I could gather from members, no inquiry was going to be made ; that Mr. Cadman denied the acquisition