11

G.—2

In the Supreme Court, the Chief Justice said : — " So far as I can see, it is a matter of regret that this application should be made, for it seems highly probable that the Executive Government will be asked to enlarge the scope of the enquiry, and that that application will be successful." The names of those who we think are entitled to this land are set out in the third schedule attached hereto. Some of these persons are dead, and on their representatives obtaining succession, ordered in the Native Land Court in the ordinary way, would be entitled to their deceased parents' shares. Both from a personal inspection of the ground and the evidence, it is apparent to us that it would be absurd to lay off reserves between Papaitonga and the sea. These reserves would be small in area and non-contiguous ; they would be of little benefit to the owners, and would seriously affect the remainder of the land. The houses of the Ngatiraukawa residing on the land are not on Section No. 9, but between it and the Hokio Stream, whilst none of the Muaupoko houses are either on Section No. 9or between it and the Hokio Stream. We suggest that, instead of laying off the reserves already referred to, the northern boundary of Section No. 9, commencing at Euamatangi, and thence to the point where the boundary bends to the southward, to avoid the Owhenga burial-place, be made coincident with the southern boundary of the Hokio Stream, and that the owners of this subdivision should have the right to fish and erect eel-weirs in that stream. This course would not effect the Muaupoko injuriously, but, on the contrary, will extinguish the claim to reserves on Block No. 11, whilst it will give the Ngatiraukawa a fishing-ground and the land on which their houses stand, and also give them their land in one block, instead of 1,200 acres in one block, with reserves of small area scattered about Block No. 11. Subdivision No. 11. This is the block upon which the tribe, prior to 1886, had their residences and their principal cultivations, and out of this Subdivision No. 9 has been cut. On it the State Farm and the village settlements are situated. It fronts the Horowhenua Lake, and contains, besides numerous lagoons, the Hokio Stream, and borders the Waiwiri Lake and Stream; so that to the resident Natives it is the most important part of the whole Horowhenua Block. In 1886, the land being in Kemp's name as nominal owner merely, this block was cut out by the subdivision Court and a certificate of title directed to issue in the name of Kemp and Warena Hunia, the younger son of Kawana Hunia. It is impossible now to ascertain why this was done—the evidence is conflicting, and we cannot place any reliance on what either side says. Warena Hunia contends that this land was given to himsef and Kemp as absolute owners, unhampered by any trust or obligation; but he admits that, as a Maori chief, he ought to provide for poor members of his hapu of the tribe; he claims that his position towards them is the same as that which exists amongst Europeans, that the duty cast upon him was exactly the same duty, and no greater, than is cast upon the rich to provide for the poor amongst us; and without prejudice to the position he has taken up, he has put in a list of those whom he is willing to provide for. We are of opinion that his claim cannot for a moment be recognised; we find no evidence which points in the remotest degree to Kemp and Warena Hunia being entitled to this large block of land, which contained the pas, cultivations, burying-places, and fishing-grounds of the tribe. Warena Hunia made, so far as we can ascertain, no attempt to prove an absolute ownership of the land in 1886, and it seems much more probable that, so far from it being the intention of the tribe to allow any one person to be, even nominally, in the position of owner, they took care, by placing Warena Hunia's name with Kemp's in the title, to have two trustees instead of one. Wirihana, Warena's elder brother, is a shrewd, intelligent man, and the last, we think, to allow his younger brother to take what was his (Wirihana's). The evidence goes to show that considerable discussion took place amongst the members of the tribe as to whose, name should be in the title—that Wirihana's name was objected to and Warena's finally put in. All this is entirely