G-6

When the inquiry opened in the present ease, Raureti te Huia was invited to proceed seriatim with the claims covered in paragraphs 1 to 8 of the petition. He thereupon dealt with 1 and 2 together, but claimed that the lands referred to in these two paragraphs were given to trustees for the Church of England and that there had been a failure of the trusts. He asked, therefore, that one-half the land be returned to the donors or that a Maori Committee be appointed to act with the trustees for the administration of the trusts. I had to point out that the petition disclosed nothing of this claim, that the crown was not affected, and that before any inquiry as sought could be entered upon it would be only fair and proper that the claim should be made in detail so that any one concerned might appear to answer it. I recommend that before any further inquiry is entered upon, that be done, and all parties concerned notified. As to the claims in paragraphs 3 to 8 they were dealt with in the following manner Paragraphs 3 and 4—lt Was alleged these lands had been confiscated and were returned' or- set aside by the Crown for Maoris both loyal and rebel, but were subsequently sold by the Crown to Europeans. Paragraph s—This5 —This land it was alleged was confiscated and later granted to Maoris, but Maoris who were not Waikatos. Paragraphs 6 and 7—These claims it was alleged related to land set aside by the Crown for Maoris but not claimed by them and later granted to Europeans. Paragraph B—Raureti te Huia was unable to say what this was related to, but was intended, I understood, to include everything not embraced in any other claim. Mr. "Wright for the Crown drew attention to the Waikato-Maniapoto Maori Claims Settlement Act, 1946, both as to the matters recited in the preamble and as to the wording of section 3, and submitted that all matters arising out of the confiscation of land in the Waikato were finally disposed of by that Act. He pointed out that all the lands referred to in the petition were included in the area edged blue on plan 15226. Raureti te Huia was unable to argue these questions. In reply to the Court he stated the claims made in the petition had not previously been presented to the Commission or to Parliament, for the reason that his constituents wanted to have the confiscated land questions settled first, and that now that they had been and the Act had been passed they thought the time was now ripe *to press these claims. If this is true, it shows little belief by the claimants in their claims. I gathered that Raureti considered that if the claims were not made before the passing of the Act they could not be said to be disposed of by the Act. I have not attempted to cheek the statement that these claims are now presented for the first time because, in my opinion, they fall within the mischief that the Act was passed to correct. The opening words of section 3 refer to claims and demands heretofore made, or which might hereafter be made, in respect of or arising out of the confiscation of lands in the Waikato district. It is perfectly clear that if there had been no confiscation of land the present claiips could not have arisen and Raureti was driven to admit this. It does hot matter in the slightest what the identity of the claimant is if the confiscation gave rise to claim.

2