9

1.-8

but nothing must be altered. He subsequently asked us to let him look through his evidence, and we then told him, " If you find anything wrong, you are not to alter it there, but you can write, and we will forward your letter with the evidence." 152. The Chairman.] As Mr. Seddon is the complainant, and has been summoned and requested to attend, perhaps he would like to ask something from Mr. Martin. 153. Hon. the Premier.] I feel somewhat aggrieved at my presence having been taken exception to, and I do not wish this morning to appear as though I was unwarrantably interfering, and I object to it being said that I am the complainant. I simply brought the matter under the notice of the House, it being my duty. I certainly would like to put a question to Mr. Martin, but would not like to interfere with the proceedings of the Committee. 154. Mr. Duthie.] Mr. Chairman, is this right or regular ? The Government is represented by the Minister for Public Works 155. Mr. Chairman.] The position is this :As a matter of order, Mr. Seddon, or any other Minister, would not as a matter of right be entitled to come here and ask any questions ; but as a matter of courtesy it is all right. If there are any questions he wishes to put I think the Committee should get them. 156. Hon. Mr. Seddon (to witness).] When you gave instructions, Mr. Martin, to put " Extract read," and sent the evidence thus marked to the Government, did you not consider what was read was material ?—To tell the truth, there were a lot of side-issues; but the real points were very few. There was a mass of material, and the evidence, except with respect to Maori genealogy, was very irrelevant. 157. Mr. Pirani.] Was the evidence, as far as possible, sent to the Government complete ?—Yes. 158. These are some of the alterations and additions taken from the report [produced] : will you kindly look at them, Mr. Martin? —I do not understand these : " that Mr. Carroll was asked so-and-so." Mr. Carroll was not up at Horowhenua, and Ido not know what these mean. Mr. Pirani : This is an extract supplied from somebody else's evidence. Hon. the Premier: There are two marked there [produced]: there is a question and an answer put in?—l cannot identify these, Sir; the evidence is too voluminous to remember these.— "Block 14: Why was not 14 returned to the people? — Because the people agreed that this should be Major Kemp's allotment." That question strikes me as being asked half a dozen times. The same questions were asked over and over again. Mr. Pirani : Mr. Martin said he did not think those things read and not supplied were material. Hon. the Premier : My question was, where blanks were left ?—I do not think they were material. 159. Mr. Pirani.] Supposing a question was put, " What do you think of the following extract from Sir Walter Buller's speech ? " and if that extract was not put in ?—-It was a perfect matter of indifference what a witness thought. 160. Was it material to that man's own questions?— Yes. 161. Was anything put in and read at the inquiry, or left out?—l could not say. 162. Did not you think Mr. Leslie would be the most competent man to fill up these blanks? — Certainly. 163. It would be very difficult for a new man to do what was required?— Yes. 164. Mr. Duthie.] In sending in that evidence, was a covering letter sent with it?—-Yes. 165. Did you draw attention to it ? —I cannot remember. The first letter was sent in with our report, and we then told the Premier we were keeping back the evidence, and that something had to be done to complete the evidence. 166. After the evidence was sent in, did you draw attention to another irregularity ?—The covering letter will speak for itself; Ido not remember what was said in it. [Mr. Carncross, on the motion of Mr. Pirani, voted to the chair.] 167. Mr. Pirani.] Mr. Martin, do you think that the addition of that extract, No. 12, slip 41 jproduced], was relevant? Mr. Martin : Has this all been interpolated? 169. Mr. Pirani.] Yes. Was it right to put that in ?—From my point of view, as Chairman of the Commission, no one had any right to deal with these documents except by instructions from the House. 170. What we want to know is, whether that would make the evidence complete, or whether, with a view to making the evidence complete, that should be left out ?—That speaks for itself. Instead of a sheet of paper coming before you with " Extract read," the extract read was set out. 171. Mr. Duthie.] Do you think that it was a general extract? —Yes. Kemp alleged that Section 14 belonged to himself. He was asked, "Did not this section belong to Whatanui's people ? " " Yes," he said, " but they selected another section." Neither of the extracts produced falsify the evidence. 172. Mr. Willis.] Do the extracts sent in make any material difference to the evidence?— No. 173. Are you still of the same opinion, after seeing the proofs, that it was the same ? —I do not think it would make the slightest difference whether the questions were left in or out. 174. Mr. Pirani.] Question 278, Mr. Martin?— This is a very good illustration of the utility or otherwise of this sort of evidence. This meeting of 1870 was a meeting the Natives held amongst themselves on the shore of Lake Horowhenua, at which they appointed a little Parliament or Committee of their own. They came to some decisions which nobody took any notice of. 175. Was anything put in ? —Nothing so far as I have seen. 176. Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones.] The one you say you cannot identify was on page 5? —Yes. 177. Mr. Pirani.] You do not think there is anything improper about this one ?—No. 178. Question 165 a, page 167 : You do not think that that was putting the evidence in a different light, interpolating that ?—I do not know. 179. Question 181, on page 168: I would like to ask Mr. Martin whether the question there would not be utter nonsense without the extract being read ?—The retainer was read at the commencement of the inquiry, and that retainer was in evidence lying on our table, and so there to speak for itself. 2—l. 8.