G.—2

86

83. Do you not know that, at that investigation, the finding of the Court was that Te Whatanui was a great chief, and the block should be awarded to those whom he was instrumental in saving ? —No; I do not remember this special investigation. 84. If it is found in the books of the Court to be so, it would be right?— Certainly. 85. Did you agree with the finding of the Court? —How could I know anything about it ? I do not remember the investigation. I could express no opinion. 86. If you were employed by me to erect a fence, and the line in which the fence was to be erected was given, and 1 came shortly afterwards and found you were erecting it in a different direction, would you correct it and put it in the place where you had been directed ?—Probably. 87. Is not the judgment in the Horowhenua case on all fours with such a fence?—l do not think so ;it may be so. Ido not see what one has to do with the other at all. 88. If you put the fence on some other line than that which you were directed, and it was wrong, would you not correct it?—l presume I would. 89. On your journeys back and forwards to Wellington, have you not seen Hectcr McDonald residing on this block?—l have. 90. Has he not told you that it was Te Whatanui who brought him to reside on this block?— I never had any conversation with him on the subject; he never told me anything about it. 91. The land upon which he was then residing was land leased to him by Te Whatanui ?—I do not know from whom he was leasing it. 92. If Donald Fraser knew about Hector's lease, why do you not know?—l do not know. They may have had conversations about it. I might say, too, that Donald Fraser's business made him stay about here frequently. My business took me to Wellington, and I simply stayed in his house. 93. Do you know of the cultivations of Te Whatanui about this land ?—I have heard of them; I do not know about them. 94. All you know is of his mana over this land?— Yes ; that is all I have heard of. 95. In the year 1886, did you see myself and Neville Nicholson at the Court ?—I remember Neville Nicholson, and I remember there was somebody with him, but 1 do not know who they were. 96. Did not the Court ask us if our names were in the certificate ?—I believe the Court did so, and you answered they were not. 97. Did we not state to the Court that our coming was in order to state the rights of our elders in this land ?—I do not remember particularly what was said, but you did stand up and state something ; at least, Neville Nicholson did, I remember. 98. Did not Judge Wilson threaten to lock us up?—l do not remember it. I have an entirely indistinct recollection of the whole thing. 99. Did you not hear that Kemp proposed to give us 1,200 acres next to Papaitonga?—Yes. 100. Did we not object to take this land, because it was not ours?—l heard Nicholson objecting. 101. Do you not know that it was because Kemp recognised the justice of our objection to this that he brought it back to the side of the Horowhenua Lake, in order that our dwelling-places, our cultivations, and our eel-weirs might be included ? —I do not think it was Kemp who brought us back there, or suggested it. 102. You see on the map that it has been brought back from Papaitonga to the Horowhenua Lake?—l do not think ie has been brought back, because I see both are there still. 103. Notwithstanding it has been brought back to the side of the lake, it still does not include our eel-weirs and other cultivations ?—I do not know whether it does or not. 104. Is this spot adjoining Haumatangi the site of the dwelling-places of Te Whatanui and his Bister, and children of his sister?—l do not know whether it was or not. 105. Notwithstanding the section having been brought back by Kemp from Papaitonga, it still leaves out all our cultivations, and dwelling-places, and eel-pas. If the Court finds out that our cultivations are left out of this section No. 9 from our elders down to us, will you agree to it ? —I do rot know what ought to be done in that case. 106. Donald Fraser has said that 1,200 acres shown there is included in the lease to Hector of 3,000 acres :do you believe that ?—I do. 107. Did you not tell this Commission that it was wrong to put the 1,200 acres into No. 9, because it was already located in No. 14 ?— No, I did not. 108. Do you know that there are certain persons living beside Waiwiri ?—No; I do not. 109. It was not till the year 1873 that Kemp and Warena got their mana over this land ?— That was so, I believe. 110. Previously to this, and back to 1840, was it not Whatanui and Muaupoko who lived on this land ?—Yes. 111. Mr. Nicholson.] You know when No. 9 was allotted in Court at Palmerston in 1866 ? — Yes. 112. Do you remember a conversation between ourselves, Kemp, and Warihana, that the lines would be 2 chains distant from the stream ?—I do not recollect that conversation ; all I recollect is that you objected to No. 14. 113. Mr. Stevens.] I understand you to say that the sons of chiefs do not exercise the same power or mana over the people now, nor have they the same claims to chieftainship as their fathers ?—I did not say they have not the same claims ; I said they are not recognised. 114. They were not recognised as their fathers were?— No. 115. Is not that principally because of the introduction of European habits and customs ?—I do not think so ; I think the chief grows. No man stepped into the position of a chief at once in the olden times.