G.—2

80

436. Did you urge on him the duty of transferring the 1,200 acres at Papaitonga to the tribe? —No. 437. If it was your impression that there was a breach of trust, why did you not urge on him that there was a breach of duty there ? —Because up to the present moment I do not know that the Ngatiraukawa has selected No. 9. I could not ask him to do anything with regard to No. 14 when the Ngatiraukawa may be electing to take it. 438. You were quite familiar with the transactions at the Court of 1890 ?—Certainly I was ; I was interpreting for Mr. Barnicoat. 439. Were you there when, under a reference from the Governor, under the 57th section of the Act of 1886, vesting adjudication in the Court, they ascertained who were the descendants of Whatanui who were entitled to an order ?—I do not remember. 440. You say you heard casually that such a reference had been made, and the matter settled by the Court '! —No ; I went to the Court casually, and there was a case proceeding between two persons, but I did not know what was before the Court. There was a case between two persons, one being represented by Mr. Morrison, and the other by Mr. Baldwin ; but what the case was or how it came there, I did not know. 442. You know it was a claim from the descendants of Te Watanui to a share in the block ?— Yes. 443. Was that consistent with what you said that when you read my pamphlet you did not know that the thing had been settled?— The thing is not settled now, that I know of. 444. You mean that as long as there is no ultimate settlement the thing is open ? —I had not been aware that there was any question about No. 9. 445. But you were aware then?— Yes. 446. How long before you saw my pamphlet?— About a month. 447. You did not say a word on the subject of No. 14 in the Supreme Court?—l was not asked anything about it. I answered the questions put to me about No. 11. 448. You said, " Mr. Lewis took a very active part in this matter, on behalf of the descendants of Te Whatanui." It was alleged that a long time ago, after the Court of 1873, Sir Donald McLean and Kemp- agreed to give 100 acres : was not that a statement ?—That was all before I heard of the business at Otaki. 449. That was a settlement ?—I distinctly deny that I knew about a settlement. I understood that it was simply alternative. I urged upon Mr. Lewis to make a choice, but he would not do it. 450. Have you been in friendly communication with the members of the Muaupoko during the period from the subdivision of the block in 1886 ?—I have been quite friendly, but not in any communication with them. 451. Have you ever discussed this matter of No. 14 with any member?— Never. 452. You have been in friendly communication with me?— Yes, and hope to continue so. 453. Have you ever, directly or indirectly, said to me a word about the land I leased from Kemp being trust property? —Not to you, except within the last few days. 454. You had heard of my having leased a block in No. 9 ? —I did, by rumour. 455. You knew I was in possession?—l was told you were not occupying that particular section; that you were occupying land bought from Ngatiraukawa. 456. You never made any communication to me, suggesting that it was a trust ? —No. 457. You remember giving evidence before a parliamentary Committee, in 1892, about this matter ? —I do not remember the year. 458. You remember that I claimed, on behalf of the whole Muaupoko, this block ? —Yes; I do not remember anything about my evidence. 459. You remember you did not say a word about Kemp having kept No. 14, when he ought to have given it back to the tribe ?—I did not think so then ; I did not think it was settled then whether it belonged to Ngatiraukawa or not. I thought he was holding it still for the Ngatiraukawa if they chose to accept it. 460. Are you the author of a letter which appeared in the Manawatu Farmer on the 4th March, headed, " A true History of the Horowhenua Block " ?—I am. 461. Do you think it was a proper thing to publish such a letter within two days of the sitting of the Commission ? Was it not a flagrant breach of the well-recognised rule that matters subjudice should not be commented on ? —I do not think it was right. 462. Is it not a fact that you were requested by the Government to publish that letter ?—No. 463. Were you not requested by someone on behalf of the Government ?—No. 464. Is it not a fact that a type-written copy of the letter was sent to you before it was published ? —Yes. 465. Were you not moved by some one to publish the letter?— No. 466. You were not asked to publish it ?—I may have been asked to publish it. I was away from home, and when I came home I found a copy of Sir Walter Buller's pamphlet. I had seen the report of what took place in Parliament in Hansard, and of that I did not mean to take any notice whatever ; but I came home and I found this pamphlet, and my immediate neighbours reading it, and coming to ask me questions about it. I at once wrote to Sir Walter Buller that I would take the first opportunity of contradicting it in several important particulars, and received a reply from him that all he wanted was to get the facts out. Under the circumstances of the case, I thought it rather mean of me to write anything about Sir Walter Buller at the time ; and I consulted my family, and they all agreed that it would not be right for me to meddle with the question then agitating the public mind, and I compromised with my own family and addressed a letter to Mr. J. G. Wilson. I wrote the letter addressed to Mr. Wilson, and took it to him and read it to him—that is, the letter that has been published. I had seen by the Act that there was going to be a Commission, but that was all I knew of it. Mr. Wilson asked me what I proposed