I.—3a.

44

[W. tt. BOW'LEIi.

an opinion from me in regard to these leases—that was in December, 1909. 1 then leu compelled to differ from the report of the Stout-Palmer Commission (G.-li of 1909), except in one respect — i.e., in regard to the opinion that the covenant re minerals was not valid. Air. Jones and his assignees have paid £100 per year to the Natives in lieu of compliance with this covenant. The position is that the Supreme Court could compel the lessee to comply with this covenant, failing which it could cancel the lease. But the procedure is a very troublesome one. [Mr. Skerrett explained procedure to the Natives present.] 1 have advised l'epene that the other lenses were wrongly put upon the Provisional Kegister, and that the lessors had either a claim for relief or for compensation from the Assurance Fund. The jjroceduie necessary in this direction would also involve the Natives in very expensive litigation. 1 am of opinion that the best thing in the interests of the Natives is for the land to be sold at a fair price, but 1 refrain from expressing an opinion as to what is a fair price. But if the Natives are satislied that the present offer is a fair one, I would advise them to sell, and so save themselves expensive litigation. If the owners sell the land in small parcels they are bound by the provisions as to limitation of area contained in Part Xll of the Act, and must themselves undertake subdivision and loading. Mr. Lewis will complete the pa3"inent of the purchase-money in three months, failing which the contract for tale, if entered into, will be void. The contract, of course, cannot be signed until an Order in Council has been issued and the resolution to sell, if carried, is confirmed by the Board. When the Government had under consideration the purchase of the land, some six or seven months ago, a valuation of it was made. It is again to be valued. lam informed that the purchase-money- will exceed the value of the interests of the lessors and non-lessors, but if such should not prove to be the case, the purchase-money will be increased accordingly, so that the owners are assured of getting the full Government value. The owners also know that matters in connection with the block are further complicated by the claims of Mr. Joshua Jones. Mr. Jones is probably mistaken in his claims, but his continual agitation confuses the position so far as both the lessee and the owners are concerned. When Mr. Lewis has paid the purchase-money he is bound to subdivide the land and to dispose of it within three years. He cannot call for a transfer of it to himself, but only for a transfer of the separate sections to his purchasers. The Board will have power to extend this period of three years at its discretion, but if Mr. Lewis makes default in selling the land as provided, the Board will have power to sell, to deduct commission and expenses, and to pay over the balance to him. Some of the owners signed the lease to Mr. Jones, some did not. It will be necessar} - for this matter to be gone into carefully. It may be that some of the non-lessors have received rent. The owners, at their meeting, should consider the question of the allocation of the purchase-monej'. Mr. Dalziell has asked me to explain that if the Supreme Court allows the lease of No. If to continue the lessee has to expend .£.'■}, ooo per year in working the minerals and timber, and the owners will have to give up the additional £100 per year they now receive, and get in its stead a royalty of 10 per cent, on the net profits, if any, arising from the working thereof. The annual expenditure of £3,000 would, of course, be a matter of great inconvenience to the lessee." That is the statement of Mr. Skerrett, made to the Board on behalf of the Native owners. In the afternoon the assembled owners held their meeting. Have you the minutes of that meeting here?— Yes, I will put them in. 275. There is only this point I want you to explain : You say that that meeting —the first meeting of assembled owners —was adjourned. Was the suggestion for an adjournment made by the Natives at the meeting, or did it come from yourself as the representative of the Board? —I think it came from myself, as representative of the Board. 1 made the suggestion mainly for the reason that, although I could have taken a vote voting away two blocks, the Board would not have felt itself justified, I think, in selling land where there was just a majority in favour of the sale. We wanted to see the proposal either thrown out or carried by a good majority. 276. The position was that a majority had agreed to sell two blocks? —I did not like to take that vote : the voting was too close. There would have been continual agitation by the dissentient Natives afterwards, and it was not practicable to allow them to partition, because the land was tied up for so long. 277. Does your list of, owners show the ages of the minors, for the succession orders? —No, 1 do not think so. 278. You have not got the Native Land Court list here, have you?— No. I have a list of owners —the ages may be shown in some cases, but not in all. 279. I should like Mr. Bowler to give us a list showing the successors, and if there are minors, to put in their names? —The Nativ* Land Court could supply that better than I could. Tht Chairman: We will get it from the Native Land Court. 2SO. lion. Mr. Ngata.] You say there was no alternative open to the Board, since the first meeting of assembled owners was directed by the Minister to be called? —Yes. 281. So there was no duty on the Board's part to consider the matter under the section quoted by Mr. Masse} , ?—No. 282. Is that your reading of the two sections side by side —sections 341 and 356?— Yes. 283. One is mandatory, where the meeting is convened on the application of tke Native Minister? —Yes, and in the other case the Boards considers the question, and, if it thinks fit, calls a meeting. 284. Do you know that that provision—the direction in section 341—was made more particularly for proceedings where the Crown was interested —where the Crown was in negotiation for the purchase of land from the Natives?—l understand that that was the position; but I do not know what the intentions of the Legislature were. 285. It is, as a matter of fact, used for that class of procedure. Your Board has had to convene meetings of assembled owners on the application of the Native Land Purchase Board? —Tee, on the direction of the Minister.