3

I.—3a.

W. F. MASSEY, M.P._

to have become the owners of the land in the way I have suggested, and then, after reserving the best of the coal-bearing area for the State, to dispose of the land under the optional system as provided in the Land Act, 1908. That is about all I have to say. There is no use my attempting to go into details, because I am not sufficiently acquainted with them. I do not know whether the Committee propose to examine me—l have not the slightest objection to being examined. 1. Hon. Sir J. Carroll.] There are one or two points in the published report of your speeches dealing with the Mokau question which do not seem to me to be covered by the points that you now submit, and it is just as well to have them cleared up. You are made to say that, as a result of the report of a Royal Commission, Mr. Joshua Jones's title to this estate became null and void ? —That is not quite correct. From which report are you quoting? 2. From that in the N>ew Zealand Herald. It says that the Royal Commission found the leases void, " so that the land again became Native land," and I think you repeated that in the House? —What I am reported to have said is this : "A Royal Commission, consisting of Sir Robert Stout (Chief Justice) and Mr. Jackson Palmer (Chief Judge of the Native Land Court), was set up, considered the conditions of the lease, and found it had not been complied with. Therefore they found it void." That is not a strictly accurate report of what I said. I looked up the report of the Commission, and the Commission reported practically that the covenants of the leases had not been complied with, particularly the covenant by which Mr. Jones agreed to spend £3,000 per annum. It was something like this, speaking from memory : Mr. Jones proposed to form a company for the purpose of developing the property, and the company —or Mr. Jones —was to spend £3,000 per annum in developing the minerals particularly. That money had not been expended. The Commission referred particularly to that, and said that on that account, and also on account of the fact that several Natives had not signed the leases in the first instance, the leases were either void or voidable. I think that was the term they used. This, of course, is a condensed report, and does not convey.exactly what I wanted to convey when I was speaking I have the report of the Commission here, and it can be put in if necessary. 3. Do you conclude now that the title to the land legally passed from Mr. Jones to Herrman Lewis or the Flowers estate?—lt legally passed from Mr. Jones, I believe. 4. And Mr. Jones has no legal estate in the block at all? —That is my opinion. Mr. Jones may have an equitable interest, but I believe he has no legal interest in the land. 5. Then it was open for Mr. Herrman Lewis to deal with the Natives? —Through the Government, yes. He could not go to the Natives direct. 6. Excepting under the provisions of the Act, when there were several owners?— Yes; but it was impossible for him to deal with the Natives except under an Order in Council. I am speaking of the whole block, of course. 7. The Order in Council comes in when the resolution is carried by the assembled ownere and confirmed by the Maori Land Board ? —That is so. 8. Now, with regard to your statement that the Government ought to have bought this land instead of leaving it to Mr. Herrman Lewis to buy : you say that it was bought at 10s. 4d. per acre? —10s. 4Jd. it works out to. 9. Do you say the Government could have bought it at 10s. 4d. per acre?—l hope that evidence will be forthcoming to show that the Government could have bought it for less than 10s. 4d. per acre. Ido not say the Government are justified in buying anything below its value. 10. Have you considered what the Government would have had to pay Mr. Lewis for his interest? —As I pointed out in the House, section 375 of the Native Land Act gets over that difficulty. 11. The right to determine the lease? —No; the right to take a leasehold interest at a valuation, the valuation to be fixed by a Compensation Court appointed under that section of the Act. 12. That is not the point. Suppose we had paid the Natives 10s. 4d. an acre : what would the Government have had to pay Mr. Herrman Lewis for his interest?—My idea is that: not that the Government should have purchased from Mr. Lewis, but that they should have purchased the freehold interest from the Natives. 13. Subject to a lease for twenty-six years? —Not necessarily, for there again section 375 of the Act comes in, wliich allows the interest of leaseholders to be determined by an Assessment Court to be appointed for that purpose. I think that would have been the proper thing to do. 14. Hon. Mr. Ngata.~\ On the assumption that the leases were valid?—lt was for the Government to say whether they were valid or not. I do not say for one moment that the opinion of the Royal Commission was right, but it would be presumptuous on my part to set my opinion against that of the Chief Justice and the Chief Judge of the Native Land Court. 15. Hon. Sir J. Carroll.] You have not calculated the value of the interest of Mr. Herrman Lewis or the lessees?—l presume it was worth what he paid for it. 16. And you presume the Government could have bought it for that?—l do not know. That is a question lam not able to answer. It is a question they should answer, I think. 17. It is answered by myself in the statement I made. We made an actuarial estimate of the cost of each interest. We had two valuations made of the land. " The Government found itself faced with these difficulties —(a) It was advised that it should not pay more than £35,000 for the whole estate in the land," &c. You have not gone into an actuarial calculation?—No, that is not a mater in which I am concerned. 18. On that point, then, it is just a matter of opinion between yourself and the Government as to which was the right thing to do? —Yes. 19. That is, whether the Government should have bought or allowed others to buy in order to permit of the land being cut up and settled, the main tKing being the settlement of the land? —Exactly. I think the Government did wrong in allowing speculators to come in and exploit the settlers.