Or.— 2

111

stage what those questions were which it proposed to refer to the Supreme Court. It was open then to counsel to say, " We will, under these circumstances, advise our clients to ask the Court to postpone taking evidence on the questions of fact until these questions of law have been disposed of." But the lawyers did not do so. On the contrary, they said, " Very well, go on and take the evidence on the question of facts." And now, after forty days have been spent in submitting to this Court apparently all the available evidence on the facts, down come these lawyers to wrangle and argue about jurisdiction and questions of law. Your Honours, if there is any meaning at all in the English language, this Court does not require any assistance from these lawyers, or from any one else, to "state" the questions of law which this Court originally proposed to refer to the Supreme Court. These questions were already formulated in the mind of the Court before any of the evidence adduced during the last forty days was presented to the Court on the hearing of this case. What, then, did the lawyers want to do by their solemn or vehement so-called argument yesterday ? I will not say what I believe they wanted to do, because my remarks might be applied personally ; but I will say this : that they did not seem to me to throw any light whatever upon the simple question which this Court is at the present time asked to determine. I do not know any more nor less than they do what exactly may be the law points which this Court had originally determined to refer to the Supreme Court, and I presume it is still in the mind of the Court to refer those points whatsoever they may be, but the Court required no assistance to formulate those questions, and I fail to see the relevancy or usefulness of the so-called arguments of yesterday. I will, with the leave of the Court, give one instance of the uselessness of these arguments. Mr. Bell laid it down as a proposition of law that the report of a Judge may not be contravened as to what had happened in his own Court; and Mr. Bell further said that by report was meant evidence or other statement which the Judge chose to make as to the matter in question. Mr. Baldwin disputed the proposition of Mr. Bell, and we were treated to an argument of the " learned friend " kind. Now, the question cannot by any possibility apply to the present case, because the Judge whose dictum Mr. Bell desires this Court to take has made several contradictory reports ; and, even if Mr. Bell's proposition is perfectly sound in law, there would still remain the question of determining which report of the Judge was to be regarded as authoritative, seeing that the reports contradict each other. Mr. Baldwin, however, did not differ from Mr. Bell on this ground, but upon some general principle, and so we had an argument that was in no respect relevant to the case before this Court. And so with all the rest of the arguments of yesterday. I will, and do, therefore ask the Court to sweep out of its mind equally the solemn and the vehement arguments addressed to it yesterday. These arguments were not needed to assist the Court to state the questions already formulated in the mind of the Court to be referred to the Supreme Court, and there was no new question raised by the arguments relevant to this case. The arguments were therefore, so far as I can see, perfectly useless, and more than useless. I will now make a few remarks on the evidence adduced in this case. The following are what I understand to be the allegations set up by Major Kemp in support of his claim for a Land Transfer certificate for Section 14 of the Horowhenua Block :— Allegation No. 1 : That the Ohau section was never actually marked off on the plan of the Court, nor awarded by the Court to enable Kemp to fulfil the agreement with Sir Donald McLean. Touching this allegation, the unfortunate, though perhaps in the first instance well-intentioned, tampering with the numbers of sections creates some perplexity, and necessitates some care to clear up. But compare minute-book No. 7, folios 184 and 185, with figure 3 under 14 on Map W.D. 508 of the Court of 1886. I submit that this alone is conclusive of the falsity of the above allegation. (Vide Judge Wilson's evidence, in which he attempts to identify No. 9 with the section dealt with on the 25th November, 1886 : "I should not like to swear that no order was made on the 25th November for the section now 14." " The subdivision was put on the plan by Mr. Palmerson." " I don't think my memory is contrary to the minutes." " Nicholson's objection of the 25th November was to what is now 14." "There was an abortive attempt to put the land now 14 through the Court for Te Whatanui's people." "My memory may be defective." " Nicholson's objection appears to me to apply to lands afterwards 14.") I submit that the positive evidence of A. McDonald, Nicholson, Himiona Kowhai, in direct explicit contradiction of this allegation, is not needed. (Commission report, page 134, question 88: " The order was made at this stage? —Yes." Instance of confusion of memory, page 134, questions 89 and 90. See also page 98, questions 1 to 7.) Allegation No. 2 : That the Ohau section was only informally offered to the descendants of Te Whatanui, and was refused by them. This allegation is to a great extent disproved by the reply to Allegation No. 1. See also evidence of Judge Wilson :"He " (Mr. Lewis) " told me that the descendants of Te Whatanui had not been able to settle anything, but to leave the land in Kemp's name." (Page 27, Judge's notes.) This was after he (Mr. Lewis) had, as alleged, "brought the land back to the Court." (26th February, 1897, pages 5 and 6, my notes marked between red crosses; Commission report, page 131, question 36.) But the fact is that there was no such gathering of the descendants of Te Whatanui at Palmerston who could authoritatively or validly accept or reject anything. According to the evidence of Judge Wilson before the Eoyal Commission it was " after the boundaries had been defined in the records of the Court" that Mr. Lewis "removed the land from the Court." (Eeports, page 131, question 36. Consequently it must have been after the afternoon of the Ist December that Mr. Lewis told the Judge nothing had been settled, and the land must be left in the name of Kemp. See also my leading question, page 131, question 37: "That is, he accepted it on behalf of the descendants of Te Whatanui?" Answer, "Oh, no; he simply said that for reasons the Government had," &c. See also report of Eoyal Commission, page 134, question 92, and page 136, question 132. In these questions and answers Judge Wilson holds that it was No. 9 not No. 14, that was refused.