MR. MINE'S CHARGES.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 976, 17 November 1910, Page 6

MR. MINE'S CHARGES.

TEAKAU,PURCHASE. THE MINISTER AND THE NATIVES. EVIDENCE OF MR. HERRIES. {THE STORY OF A " ROLL OF NOTES." The special Parliamentary Committee for the investigation of the charges •made by Mr. Hine, M.P., took further evidence yesterday morning 'on the charge' against Mr. Henare. Kaihau, M.P., who was accused of taking a commission from the Native owners of portion of Te Akau Blockfor ionducting the sale of the land-to the Crown. Mr. v J. A. Hanan presided. Mr. M. Myers appeared for. Mr. Hine, while Mr. C. P. Skorrett, K.C.', with:' him Mr. F. B. Sharp, represented Mr. Kaihau. The ; Hon. James Carroll, who had been called, as -a, witness by Sir Joseph Ward, «aid, in addition to the statement ho had made on the previous day, that no actual .purchase took place until 1907, because it 'was not till then that the title had been determined. In the interim the' Government decided to get a valuation, made further advances, and received numerous i offers from different Natives for the sale of their interests in Te Akau. Sir Joseph Ward then' questioned Mr. ■Carroll concerning the clause of the iMaori.' Washing-up Bill of 1906, which Tiad been proposed and rejected in 1905, 'and vrhich directed, the Appellate Court Ito reinvestigate the To Akau titles.- , . Mr.-'Carroll said the matter came up ion a petition by Para; Haimona, praying .'for the reinvestigation. A clause was drafted, and he thought-it was to have ibeen moved by Mr. Kaihau; but the com- ' mittee rejected it. It was moved in the House, and carried by a majority, but the Bill did not go any further than the Legislative Council. The following year it-was brought up again, and he thought it received the assent of the Native Affairs Committee, and was passtd into, law. That was practically the same clause vfhicli he had opposed the year before, because it had not passed the Native Affairs Committee. 1 Ho did not" remember what took - place on the Native Affairs Committee -"in. regard_ to the clause. A reinvestigation of the title of To. Akau could not have been effected without it. He never recognised Mr. . Kaihau -. in connection with .tho Te Akau purchase. •- In reghrd to the deed which Mr. Kensington in his evidence had said he received from-Mr." Carroll, and which contained a provision for. 10 per cent, of the purchase money to be paid to Mr. Kaihau, the witness remembered receiving it at his hotel.' ' It purported. to come from ' Pepene Eketone. Witness immediately sent it to Mr. Kensington, •to put him on his guard. Mr. Kensington afterwards saw him personally, ana witness advised him to caution his ofnicers. - Witness sent the' deed back _ to 'Pep&ne, ■ and told him he ignored the .whole, thing, and that it was ridiculous. A Remarkable Question. Sir Joseph Ward: I must ask: you one more question, which I am very sorry to have to ask. Since you held the portfolio of Native Minister have you • ever had any interest in any Nahvo land solu to. the Government?- . . . . - The Chairman: I donfc think that question has been'raised. '■ ; , - Mr-Myers: Certainly not. Sir Joseph Ward: Wo want-to remember that Mr. Hine's charges aro accusing the Government, of Tammanyism. Mr.. Massey : .Wo don't know what .Tammanyism - is yet. - Sir Joseph Ward: I don't believe there is any of it in this country.. Mr. .Skerrett: May 1 -suggest, that ' Sir Joseph Ward has probably done what he; 'desired to do.by putting the question. _ Mr. Myers said he would, like to point out that whatever had been said in the Houso was not beforo the_ committee. .What was before the committee was a number of specific, charges, to which the committee was confined. Sir Joseph 1 . Ward said'ho put the question because-he thought an opportunity, ought to be given to Mr. Carroll on his oath to reply .to suggestions or insinua-tions-that had been made. . The Chairman stated that nothing had been said in evidence reflecting on tho conduct of Mr. Carroll-as Native Minister. He thought Mr. Mj-ers would agree with him. • ' ' : Mr. Myers: Nothing .has been said in ■'this inquiry to justify, the suggestion •which the Primo Minister's question coni.vcys. • The Chairman said Mr. Carroll could pnswer the question if ho thought fit. "An Emphatic Denial," Mr. Carroll: I'deplore the question as •being considered necessary.- I do not re•quiro any opportunity to answer what . Ithe question suggests. If called upon to ianswer, I would givo.it an .emphatic deaial. .Questioned as to the adjoursjient of 4he Native Land Court by his instruc- ; itians, >Mr. Carroll said that on December 5, 1305, the Court was sitting at Raglan, and Judge Edger had before him a claim for the--partition, of the ,block. He refused to partition it without a proper scheme of roading, but afterwards was prevailed upon to proceed with apartial partition of "the block, with a ,;view to the laying off of a rood on 'a particular part of the'block. Mr. OtWay, surveyor, was ■ authorised by th? Court to perform the survey, but it was afterwards represented to him (the Minister) that , Mr. Otway was an interested party, being one of a syndicate which. was attempting to secure leases over - the land. Ho (tho Minister) thereupon directed the Court to adjourn. He did-so in the public interest,' the Government having then in-con-templation the purchase of tho block. .The Native Minister had statutory power |to direct the movements of tho Court iwhen public interests might be menaced. If the leases had been assented to, and the partition proceeded with, the purchase .of tho block by the Crown would have Ibeen hindered. Ho had never given any to havo the tribal boundary shifted. That would be outside his •power. It hnd always been the practice •of the Government to make advances to . ;the- Natives prior to the purchase ot ilond, and mcaey had never been lost in ' that w-y. The Hon.' J. A. Millar : It has been said •that you- postponed the .Court on three occasions to enable. the Court to take away the interest of the Tainuis. Is ithat so?—" That is not. so." You have explained one of those postponements. Do you know anything about the. others?—" No.". . ' Mr. Massey: Did the Natives offer the 13,000 acres to the Government ?—"They : .could only offer their. interests, but they ; gaid they considered themselves .the -owners of 13,000 acres." ' What position did Mr. Brown occupy before be was made a Native Land Court Judge?—"He was president of a Maori •Land Board, I think." Do you know that he accompanied Mr. ■Sheridan when . the latter tried to inSduco the principal Tainui owaer to sell ;to the Crown?—" No." The Minister and Mr. Kaihau. Mr. Myers: Did you not know that the agreement between Mr. Kaihau and .the Natives did not- make Mr. Kaihau an agent for the Crown, but merely an agent for the Natives?—" Tha- may be so." Do you suggest that Mr. Kaihau was by th'afc agreement made an agent for the Crown, or placcd in tho position of acting for tho Crown in any way?—" No. He never acted for tho Crown." Then what was your objection to that agreement?—"On principle. I always dealt direct with the Natives, not through any agency, especially not through a member, of Parliament." Did you then think it wrong for a member of Parliament to act as Mr. Kaihau was to act under that agrce.ment?—"l did not question Mr. Kaihau's relations with his people. That was-out-side my province." . You wero not concerned with' what -they paid to Mr. Kaihau ?—"No." Further cross-examined, tho Minister oaid ' that Mr. Kaihau on one occasion introduced a deputation to him, when ?ara Haimona and others offered, in Mr. iCaihau's presence,' to .sell their interests in Te Akau to the Government. He jhsught this, was before, .the .end ;of 0q-

tober or middle of November, 1900. They canio several ,i;imes. . Mr. Kaihau introduced them the first time. Did not Mr. Kaihau's prcseuco make you suspicious?—" No." The Government "Agreed." The letter, of Mr. Wi C. Kensington to Mr. Duncan, valuer, on November 10, 1900, was again produced, and the attention of the witness was drawn to tho words "the Government havo agreed to give not less than i£2 per acre for tho ' land in question."-The Minister said that ( "agreed" meant "decided." | Next tho letter of Mr. Kensington to ( Mr.. Grace, land purchase officer, dated January 7, 1907, was produced. It stated: "Some of the principal Natives havd been ( in Wellington and had an interview with I the Hon. tho. Native Minister and tho j Department, tho result being that an , agreement has been como to for tho pur- ( chasa of the area shown on tho plan j herewith, estimtvted to contain about j 13,000 acres, at a price of not less than ( £2 an acre." , Mr- Myers: Does not that show that an | arrangement has "been come to—not, per- , haps, a binding agreement—for the pur- j chase' of the 13,000 acres?—" Yes." | The Minister also said that tho inter- , view referred to in Mr. Kensington's let- j ter took, placo some time before tho in- , terviews at.which the-Natives', were int.ro- i duood by Mr. Kaihau. . Had you not yourself arranged with j Para and others, as stated in that letter? —"No.' Mr. Kensington and I had de- i cided on tho price. When the Natives , came to see nre, 'they asked for advances. , I sent them down to Mr. Kensington to , draw against their interests." , That would;be in November, 1906, and , at that/time" Mr. Kaihau had acted in , introducing the' proposed legislation of i 1905, and he had seen you with Para Haimona, and tho next thing we find is ■ that that agreement between Mr. Kaihau arid the Natives had been prepared. Don't you think Mr. Kaihau might well havo : thought at that time that ho had done ■ something necessary to the sale of the • land to the Crown, subject .to his people , ■ being given the' title by the Court, and to ; the signatures being obtained?—"No , doubt that view might have been held by him and his clients." So that 'he and they might have as- , sumed, that he. had done. his, work and practically negotiated the sale?—" They might take that view, but I think if you asked Para, .he would say he was the principal man." . 'Native. Land Court Judges. [ The Native Land Court Judges have no fixed tenure of office, have they? Their salaries have to be voted -.by Parliament year by year?—" Yes," , Do you th ink it ; right Mr. Skerrett: I object to anything'Of this.kind. • Mr. -Carroll: Of course I would not like to suggest that they are on that account susceptible to influence, if that is what you mean. Mr. Myersl don't suggest' that, but don t you think it would be better Mr. Reed objected to this question, and,' aftor a discussion wiffi the Chair- 1 man, tho subject was dropped. " . • : Mr. Myers: I think it is, fair to ask you this question:' You have been asked ; about tho conversation alleged to. have : taken, placebetwceii Mr.'Sheridan and the. ' representative of the Tainuis in April, 1906, and I think you said Mr. Sheridan made no report to you. Would you personally_ havo been a party to iny such suggestion as_ was said to haye been made by Mr.; Sheridan to Remana. Nutana, of the Tainuis?—"Decidedly not." , . Supposing Mr. Sheridan, in 1906, had purchased-the interests of the'Tainuis, as they, then stood, and the Government had advanced half the purchase money do, you think it at all likely that tho clause of 1906.w0u1d ever have been introduced or passed?—"l could not venture an opinion, on that." ' . To Mr. Skerrett:. The purchase of the land was contemplated long before Mr. Kaihau appeared on. the scene, and witness did not believe that Mr. Kaihau's efforts affected the price. Evidence of Mr. Herries, Mr. W. H. Herries, M.P. for Tau'ranga (called by Mr. Massey), said he had been a member of-the Native Affairs Committee since 1903. Ho remembered a' petition presented bv Mr. Massey'.'! in 1905about the Te -Akau Block. Mr. Massey introduced the petitioners to him. This lino of examination :was objected to. by Mr.- Skerrett and. by- Mr. Reed. .' Mr. Massey explained • that tho Maoris referred to were .part owners of To Akau Block, and had handed a petition to; him. He told them, that Mr. Herries looked . after his, petitions, on tho Native -Affairs ' Committee. 1 ■" He asked Mr. Herries to. repeat what tho Natives said to him.' ... , Mr.,. Skerrett strongly ■ objected to, the question. It was not , fair, because lio had no means of knowing anything about wbat occurred. A prima facio statement of the matter of a petition to a gentleman, who was interesting himself in it ought not be admitted as evidence. ■ Mr. Massey . asked whether Mr. Skerrett had a right to object' to any question by a member of, the committee. A 1 Roll of Notes. s The' Chairman said tho. question might be. answered, and he would then nilo whether tho answer should bo reported. The witness then stated that, bo met the Natives in the old Parliamentary Buildings, and they put their case beforo him. They wero Ngatitahinpa people. He took their papers to look over them, and ho said he was satisfied that the committee would do them justice. Then one of the Natives took him aside. Mr. Skerrett: I object most emphatically. i • ■ . • The witness was allowed to proceed. • He said that the Native who drew him ;aside said nothing, but simply put a roll of notes into his (witness's) pocket. Witness took them out 'and gave them back, telling him it was a very wrong action. -This Native, lie believed, was Para Haimona. He was not quite sure. Not Excited, But Indignant. Mr. Skerrett again, warmly objected.. He contended that the obvious and solo ' object of calling this evidence was to cast an- insinuation upon his client. Tho \ chairman had been induced to allow this evidence by a positive statement of Mr. Massey' that it did not refer to Mr. ; . Mr. Massev: I hope Mr. Skerrett will 1 not get excited. ; Mr.-Skerrett: lam not excited, but I am indignant. ; Mr. Massey: I don't see how it reflects. ' on Mr. Kaihau. Perhaps Mr. Skerrett ! may, with his greater knowledgeof his ' client. I think it is right that the pub- | lie should know how this thing .was , The witness also said he thought both 1 Mr. - Carroll and himself opposed tho ' clause on the Native Affairs Committee. ■ To Sir Joseph Ward: His impression was that.ho voted with Mr. Carroll on the committee and against , him in the ; House. It had been represented to him 6 in the meantime that' tho adoption of the clause would-lead to getting European ' settlers on to the land. ' ■ Tho Hon. J. A. Miliar: Did Mr. Massey ' know you had been offered money by ! those people when you and ho voted for tho clause in 1905, after it had been' rc- [ jected by tho Native Affairs.Committee?— ■ "Ho did." 1 Mr. Massey: I think that when _ the clauso was moved during- the Committee ' stago of the Bill, you and I, and ono ;■ or two others, talked tho matter over and came to' tho conclusion, in tho intorcsts of settlement, that <thc clause, should bo agreed to,, and an inquiry held into tho respective interests. of the Na- : tives?—"Yes; though it was rather ! against my —" „ i Mr. Skerrett: Then I understand that t Mr. Massoy wanted the clause, not be-. cause tho investigation of the block was 3 required in tho interests of justice, but 3 for tlio sake of settlement in the Aucl>- - land district?-"!, can't sav what was in . Mr. Massey's mind." Before the committco adjourned, Air. t Myers said he had five more witnesss to s call on tho other charges against Mr. l Kaihau-those relating, to petitions. He a thoufiht they could be heard lO'day, and the Flaxbounic case could be taken toa morrow. The committee will sit again this morn- '■ ing. - .