23

I.—3a.

F. 11. D. BELL.

98. As to the iest, your statement is } r our opinion, very largely, m a lepra! gentleman? —I should be very much surprised to leara that you do not agree with me. 99. For instance, you do not agree with the Commission in its opinion with regard to the validity of the leases in its report to the Government, and you have given that in evidence?— It is a question of the right of the bona fide purchaser for value to Ih>l<l it. you see. You may say thai it is Mr. Jackson Palmer I am differing from. 100. Not the Chief Justice?— Oh, the Chief Justice too. 101. But there is a doubt upon that point when such eminent gentlemen as yourselves differ about the position of Mr. Jones's leases? —If you are going to accept the Chief Justice, there never was a claim upon the Assurance Fund, because the leases were never validly registered. If you accept what the Chief Justice and the Chief Judge said, then the claim against the Assurance Fund is bogus and there is an end of it. If they are right, no damage was suffered by the registration. 102. The Chairman.\ That is owing to the fact that the leases never were registered?— Yes, that they were void, and that it was a provisional register, and therefore the same right of attack exists as if there was no Land Transfer Act. If the Chief Justice and the Chief Judge are right. there is still no claim against the Assurance Fund, and they do not suggest that there is. 103. Hon. Mr. Ngata."\ You have not a list, I suppose, of this committee that was set up at your instance? —Yes. This was the first committee: Mr. Hardy, Mr. Tuiti Macdonald, Aterea, and Pairoroku. Then I can give you the change that was made at the meeting held on the 2P.th January— the meeting of the owners of sections: .Mr. Hardy, Aterea, Pairoroku, Wetini, Tauhia. Tβ Oro, and Tatana. They wrote on the 29th January to say that at a meeting held at Mokau on the 29th January business was discussed and so forth, and it was decided that there should be a change. I will put the letter in. [Letter put in.] They got rid of Tuiti Macdonald at that time for some reason. 104. Beyond Mr. Hardy's statement in a letter to you that he had obtained the authority of 77 per cent, of the owners, you do not yourself know that you represented 77 per cent, of the owners? —No. They said in tho letter that the warrants which had been sent out were being signed in great numbers. 105. Did that authority ever reach your office? —No, I never would accept it afterwards. When they had sold I would not be bothered any more witli them. 106. I suppose we can get it from Mr. Hardy? —Yes, I think you will get from him how many signed. 107. You expressed an opinion as to the effect of certain provisions in the Act of 1909 with regard to the powers of assembled owners. You are aware of the provision in the statute for a dissentient owner cutting out his piece?—No; it is only if he is landless, is it not? 108. No. If he signs a memorial of dissent at the meeting the Board must send that on to the Native Land Court for partition. Do you know whether that was done at any of these meetings?— No. If you have got the Native Land Act there would you mind referring to the provision that you mention ? 109. It is in section 348, I think? —No, I think you are wrong. That section relates to a case where there has been an application for partition. It empowers the Board to deal with the land notwithstanding a pending application for partition. 110. I have given you the wrong section; but there is such a provision, I know?—l think it only applies to landless people. 111. No. Passing to another point, it is unfortunate that Mr. Skerrett is not here, but in his letter to the Native Minister he says, " I think that an arrangement can be made by which the Native owners should sell their reversion in the block expectant on the determination of the leases for a sum of £25,000, to be paid in cash within three months from the date of the contract." Mr. Skerrett does not express any opinion there that that is an insufficient sum for the freehold of the Natives. I understand he put that view before the first meeting of assembled owners —that he considered that>£2s,ooo, if accepted by the Natives, was a fair thing for them?— Yes, he told me he had done.so. He told me also that the Natives did not agree with him, and that he was not going to do any more in the matter. 112. I know as a matter of fact that he was of opinion that if the Natives got £25,000 it would be a good thing for them? —Yes, he could not have recommended it unless he thought so. Mr. Dalziell: I should like to mention that clauses 344, 345, and 348 of the Native Land Act give the power that Mr. Ngata referred to just now. 113. Mr. Mander.] I should like to know whether, in Mr. Bell's opinion, there were any greater difficulties in the way of the Government purchasing this block than in the way of Herrman Lewis purchasing?— Yes. There was no difficulty in the way of the Government purchasing from the Natives and Herrman Lewis combined, but if the Government dealt with the two separately they would have to arrive at two separate prices. Mr. Herrman Lewis combined both interests, and therefore it was simpler for him. 114. Mr. Seddo?i.~] You referred to the Mokau Land Act and some provisions of it: what bearing has that on these leases? —The question is whether these Natives would have a claim on the Assurance Fund though they had executed these leases. Well, they executed a series of documents within an Act of Parliament which declares that these leases shall be valid for all purposes. Those documents are presented to the Registrar, who has the Act of Parliament before him. It is the Natives who mislead him. Ihe injury done to the Natives is not done by the Government in any way; it is done by the Natives themselves. My reference to the Act is to show that the Registrar would not register the leases unless somebody came to him and said, " Here are leases executed within this power." Otherwise he could not register Native leases at all.