95

G.-2

He was connected with Ngatiapa; but Taueki is really recognised as specially the chief of Muaupoko. 389. Therefore, it is possible for a chief to be connected with other tribes and still be the chief of the tribe of his wife or mother ?—Yes; that is the European idea, but it is not so ; a chief is a chief in his own part only. 390. Then, if his mother belonged to a particular tribe, the chief must also belong to that tribe ? —He would take his chieftainship from his father's side. 391. In some cases, but not in all?— That is not so. If the woman had been a chieftainness, she would remain with her own people [meaning that her husband would come to her.] 392. Did not the husband come, in the first instance ? —Yes ; he came and married her, but took her straight away to his own place and stopped there. Tanguru married his wife at Wanganui, and brought her straight here. 393. Where is Kaiawa's child buried ? —He was being brought here, and died at Wharangi. It was then spoken of to take him back to be buried, but the Muaupoko brought him and buried him here. That has no significance in connection with his land. 394. At that time the present Wirihana was a child? —Yes. 395. Did the Muaupoko not send for him, and bring him, and rear him up as one of their people ? —I do not know about the present Wirihana being brought up here, but I have seen him here. 396. Was he here only temporarily, or was he residing here for some considerable time?—He was not very long here, and went back again to Eangitikei. 397. Did you never hear that he came down for the purpose of taking the place of his uncle, Wirihana, who was buried on the land here?—l never heard that. 398. If it stated so in evidence, would it be wrong ? —Yes ; it would be wrong. 399. If so, why did you and the Muaupoko accept the assistance and services of his father in maintaining your rights ?—We never asked him to interest himself in Horowhenua ; it was his own thought. 400. Were you not glad of his assistance as your chief to maintain your rights, as against outside tribes ? —I do not know what others thought, but I know what I thought myself. 401. If I were to say that I thought your memory was defective, would you say I was wrong? —It is not a matter that has been forgotten by me. 402. When you were in Wellington with Kawana Hunia, who made the representations there with regard to the whole matter ? Who took the leading part as chief ?—Kemp was the only one I heard speaking. 403. I am not speaking of the occasion when Kemp was there, I am speaking of the occasion when they were in gaol ?—I did not hear anything said by any one. 404. Therefore, Hunia did the business and you knew nothing of it ? —I was there myself as a great chief; I did not hear of anyone in particular putting himself forward. 405. Is it not a fact that the charges of arson against these people were withdrawn, through the instrumentality of Sir Donald McLean ?—Yes ; that is true. 406. The next point is this : who represented to McLean that these charges should in justice and fairness be withdrawn ? —I do not know who moved McLean. 407. If I say I was present with Hunia when be asked for the charges to be withdrawn, would Ibe wrong?— How should I know anything about it? Why do you ask me? 408. You were not taking the same active part as Hunia ?—No; that was not the reason. I was not asked to go; if I had known of you two going I would have gone. 409. With regard to the subdivision of the block, was the portion for the railway made over to Kemp for the purpose of being transferred to the railway company ? —I knew nothing about it till I got to the Court at Palmerston, and then I heard it was for the company, and we gave it to Kemp for the purpose. 410. There were no conditions with regard to it ? You gave it over to Kemp on no conditions other than that it was to be sold ? You were to get none of the money ?—There was nothing said of any sort to the effect that he was to return any part of the money. 411. When No. 2 was given to Kemp, were there not certain conditions upon which it was given—that so much land would be returned to the Natives ?—We did not impose any conditions ; but Kemp and Wirihana told us we would get so many quarter-acre sections out of it. 412. Are you sure it was Kemp and Wirihana who told you, and not Kemp alone ? —I am sure it was those two ; they were the persons who had the knowledge and could inform us of the European law, and it was left to them ; they informed us we would get the quarter-acre section. 413. And the land was sold to the Government ?—Yes ; they were both in Wellington, selling the land. 414. Do you know to whom the money was paid—to Wirihana, or Kemp?—lt was paid to Kemp only. 415. Have you received your quarter-acres ?—ISI o ; afterwards I went to Wellington about this matter, and I was then told by Kemp that they would get no quarter-acres. 416. Do you consider that proper conduct on the part of a chicf —first, to make you a promise, and then, not attempt to fulfil it ?—-It was the Europeans that did it, and not Kemp. It was his friends, the Government, who said, " Do not have anything to do with those quarter-acre sections ; it will spoil the town." 417. How much money did Kemp receive for the sale of No. 2?—£6,000, I heard. 418. What became of the £6,000 ?—The money was spent; some survey charges were paid out of it; the rest was paid to lawyers. There had been litigation for many years, and £400 was owing to one lawyer, and £500 to another, and it has all gone in litigation. 419. Can you say on what particular subdivision the money was paid in respect of survey ?— For the outside boundary, not the internal survey.