THE MOKAU ESTATE.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1186, 22 July 1911, Page 7

THE MOKAU ESTATE.

MR. MASSEY'S SPEECH FORCES EXPLANATIONS. fHE CASE FOR THE PURCHASER. MR. JONES AND PARLIAMENT. PRESS COMMENT. The following is the full report, taken from tho Auckland "Herald," of July 20, of Jlr. llassey's reference to tho. Mokau Estate in his Auckland speech:— During his references to tho Nativo ' land 'question at. his meeting last.night, Mr. ]Y. F. Massey dealt with somo re- ■ cent transactions in connection with tho "■famous Mokau Estate. , He ? described the block as-being about 50,000 aorcs, fairly good pastoral,laud, ami. a lot of it fit for dairying. Tlpou it wore coal and limeBtpne; it had a large "water frontage ; to a, navigable river. It was leased to a European, anil ho went Home to raise money to. work tho estate. ' AVhilo there he got into financial difficulties. ■ There was a covenant in the lease compelling ' him to spend at least ,£3OOO a year on tho development of the land; but as time went on, his difficulties increased, he did not comply with that covenant, and at last he mortgaged Uis interest in the estate and came out; A Royal Cotornis■eion, consisting of Sir Eohert Stout, Chief Justice, and Mr. Jackson Palmer, Chief Judge of the Nativo Land Court, was set inp,' considered the conditions of the lease, and found it tad,not been complied -with. Therefore they found it void, so that the Jand again became Native land. They tec'oraniended the Government to "deal with it, and to set apart part of it for the Nativo owners, and open the rest for settlement. 'But the interest of the mort- , gageea in ■ tho estate, was sold in Wellington for a nominal sum, and the individual who purchased it sot'to -work to approach the congregated Native ■ owners, and offered them a price,, which they declined. . . ' ■

■ "Now I want to know," said Mr. Massey, "how he became aware that the Government would give Mm the freehold of the block , if the Natives had consented to lot him purchase. , The Act states that no European can purchase more than MO.acres of' first-class iand'from 'Native owners. But there is another clause in the Act which says that when' it is in the public interest the Governor'may by Order-in-Council issue a title to the purchasers. Evidently .this person had .convinced himself that it would ho in the public- interest to'-allow-him 1 -to acquirethis freehold.. The -Natives were called together again, and same more , induce-

ment offered; and this time they agreed, / nnd sell' the estate. You know what the land in Taranaki- is like; and you know about the land' hunger. That 50,000 acres was sold to him for about 10s. nn acre. ■He turned .round, ami sold itstraight away to a syndicate at a profit of 'more than 100 per cent. ■'.".. "The lawyers who acted for the individual -who owned the mortgage and. who " was purchasing the ln'nd from the Natives,"- Mr. Massey continued, "wero Find- ' ■ la'jy Dahiel, and Co. The gentleman who signed the- Ordor-in-Council was Sir James Carroll, Acting-Primed Minister; The chairman.of tho syndicato is ■'an■ ex-Min-ister for Lands iff ivery.'strong' leasehold proclivities—Mr. "Robert M'Nab." : ,Mr. Massey continued that he had been - informed that the syndicate Had purchased another 15,000 acres, and thus held nearly - 70,000 acres of Taranaki land. Why were they allowed to acquire it?' He wanted ■ to see the Native land- settled.:and.-,occ.u- . pied., But why was .not..H .sufficient'-.area riiftjjvjd for 'the ,^.fitivQ.>p.epj>le,?;.[ i Nflt ,n, single acre was so reserved.••'.-If -it -was necessary to-part.with the land,.why was it not'sold under the limitation clause?

Why was it hot sold by auction or l>y tanu-er, so that nobody could, purchase jmore, than-'4oo' acres of ■■ first-class or a >. corresp.o.nding area of second or. thirdclass land?. : Why. did the Government not purchase it.themselves aiid.tnen utilise it for closer settlement? He had referred to this matter in Wellington a few nights ago, and had asked for an inquiry. Next night Sir James Carroll had to some extent replied; but heihad evaded the rnain points; MtvMassey said he, still asked for'an inquiry, and ho would dp so in tho House. He .-wanted to know why this 50,000 acres had. been allowed to pass into. the, hands of speculators instead ;of going "into those of bona-fide settlers. .:..,.,, . „,' •"I have never, said Mr. Massey, trafficked in Native' lands, and I don't know a single member,of the Opposition who h&sv It does not 'suit us. But I know a good number of Government men who huVe. If there is nothing wrong about this business there can be no objection to an inquiry. A few years ago this posi-. tion was before 'the legislative Council, ' who asked-for an inquiry, but it was refused: If a majority of the House say no inquiry will be held now, that is thenlookout, and it will become a matter between, them'and their;constituents. _ I : am going to force the question 'to a division. ,THE CASE FOR THE PURCHASER; ME. DALZIELL'S EXPL.A NATION.' [To the Editor iof Tile Dominion/] Sir,—As .the transactions relating .to this block, .including uiy firm's associatiaii have-became the sport oi politician, will you please permit;, me to'state" shortly the facts iar as they . are, wi'thin my knowledge'. " ,•■ ..-• ■ In May, I'JijS, the title to.the leases .from' the Natives •of .tho 'Mokau. blocks was' vested on the- Land Transfer ltcgister in the executors of -ouo Flower (deceased), a solicitor formerly reading ui" England, the interest of Mr. .Jo'shuu Jones in the leases having'been, sold by the; Registrar under a mortgage held by the , eseeutors and bought in by them, Shortly before the abovo-.'date, Mr. ■Herrniau Lewis, of .Wellington, had acquired tho right from, the flowers «- equtors .to purchase, the leaseholds, and Oil tho strength of this right he, on the date referred to, entered into an agreement with Messrs. Mason Chambers, -of Hastings, runholder, K-. D. D. M'Lean, of.Hawke'a Bay, ruiiholder, and Sir Francis Price, of Napier,, runhol'der, fi)r the sale, to these three gentlemen of his interest.'in tho peases; and ,on. the execution pi this agreement the sum of ,£7OO was paid in cash to Mr. Lewis, and the sum of mm 'deposited .with the purchasers solicitors in Wellington (Messrs Moorhousc and Iladficld). after the deposit of this -rnoncv, tho solicitors to blower's executors (Messrs. Travers, Campbell, and Peacock) obtained from Messrs. Moorhouso and Hadfield. an Undertaking 'to pay to them {he. siim oI \MM upon a transfer of tho « 3 w ' 3 , bein " registered. Messrs.. Travers Campbell, and Peacock accordingly registered a transfer of the leases to Mr, Lewis, taking from him to the evteeutors a mortgage for the purchase money. '. '" ' ■

In tbo m«mtimc( Mr. P. S. MXran of Napier, solicitor (acting for tho Hawke's Bay purchasers) had looked into the question of tho title; to tho le-a.rcs, and advised that in his opinion there were grave doubts as to tho validity of the leases as obtained from the Natives by Mr. Joshna Jones.

About tho .same time, also, Mr. Jones had lotfged a r.ivpnt against the title -to the leases, claiming to bo the rightful o\/ne'r of them.

On July 20th, 1003. tho full'bench of the Supreme Court dealt with, the question of the caveat, and ordered its removal, holding 'that Mr. Jones had no interest of any kind in the leases.

On tho, 23i'd of the same month, (he transfer above referred to to Mr. Lewis Iran registered.

Up to this date no member of my firm had acted in any way for Mr. Lowis or anyone else in connection with this matter, or had any connection with the Mokau block.

Our first association with the matter was on August 3, 1908, when Mr. Lewis consulted me with reference to the legal difficulty involved in the , -respective disputes between him and his Hawke's Bay purchasers, and between tho Hawke'6 B.iy purchasers and Flower's executors, who wero claiming" the performance of the undertaking by tho .purchaser's solicitors with resDect of the sum of £43Qd

It was tjieti arranged that, with a view to avoiding the complicated litigatiou which promised to arise out. of the circumstances, an effort should Iμ made, either lo perfect the leases or to purchase from the Natives their interest iu the block

On September 29, 1908, I wrote to the Native Minister suggesting that the Koynl Commission then dealing with Native lauds should bo asked to report upon the position of this block, with a view to soma arrangement satisfactory to the Natives and the lessees being arrived at for the disposal of the property. . In February, 1909, the Koyal Commission, consisting of his Honour the Chief Justice and Judgo Palmer, of tho Native land Court, dealt with the matter, but cnnie to the- conclusion that tho leases obtained by Mr. Jones were so defective that the Natives would not be justified in paying more than a small sum to the lessees for their interest.

At this timo Mr. Lewis had offered t* pay to the Natives tlio sum of ,£15,000 for their interest in the block, but they were disposed to accept this.amount. Subsequently, however, on'the publication ot tha commission's report, the Natives refused to consider tho sale of their interest at the price- of and the Hon. J. Carroll, on their behalf, sought tho opinion of Mr. Skemtt, K.C., as to t;he validity'of the lease. Mr. Skerrett advised that in his opinion the legal questions involved were very difficult, and if litigation ensued would probably have to be determined by the Privy Council. He also advised, howover, that according as the leases were valid or invalid by reason of the , provisions of the Land Transfer 'Act, then either the natives or the v lessee would be •entitled to claim compensation, from tlio land transfer assurance fund, and in order, to protect the Natives Jlr. Skerrett commenced proceedings against the assuranco fund for the sum of .£BO,OOO damages. ; '

J. understand, also, that Mr. H. D. 8011, A.C.; was subsequently- consulted by a section of tho, Natives, and' that his opinion on tho legal questions involved was substantially in agreement with Jlr. SkerreU's, though he dißered Iroto Mr. Skerrett on the question, of compromise. Mr. Bell's opinion was produced by the Natives at the meeting on January'G; referred to later, at which Mr. Skerrett represented-the Natives.

After .considerable further negotiation between Mr. Skerrett, on behalf of the Natives, the Hon..Mr. Carroll and myself, and after an exhaustive valuation had been made on behalf of the Government by Government' valuers,' the Natives intimated that they were''prepared to accept the sum of .£25,000' for their freehold interest. . ■ . •

In order that this arrangement might bo carried into effect, it was necessary that an Order-in-Council should be j?rantcd permitting the lessee to acquire the whole block. •''.-' ■•

The Government was accordingly asked 1 be Mr. Skerrett and myself to grant tho Order-in-Council. It was pointed out that if this were (lone all the litigation above referred to would bo avoided, and it was stated that the' lessee was agreeable to purchase the freehold upon the condition that he should dispose- of it in areas complying with the limitation provisions of the Native Land Act, i.e., m; areas'.not exceeding 400 acres of first-class" land and an equivalent • area of second, or thirdclass, • ■,- ■ .•■•■•• Tho Government finally agreed to the course suggested. ■ ... "

. The consent of the Government to tho issue of the Order-in-Couucil was, given early in the month of December, 1910, arid a, meeting of the Native owners was immediately called for the purpose of considering tho question of. tho sale of thtt Natives' interest in the "ock to tho lessee. This meeting was held <y.i tho 6th day of January, 1911. ' Mr.' Skerrett represented the Natives, and advised them that they must determine for themselves tho question of price, but; that it was, in his opinion, advisable for them to avoid the delay, expense, and risk of litigation which-was inevitable if no amicable settlement could be arrived at. ' | At'this meeting tho Natives could not come to an agreement among themselves as to the proposed sale, and the meeting was accordingly:adjourned.,/, .. At "-about this'time Mr.''Mason Chambers, of Hawke's Bay, who had acquired interests in other properties at Mokau adjoining this block, obtained from Mr. Lewis an option over the Mokau Block, and some time after the meeting abovo referred to lie, in conjunction with the holders of the ( other -Mokau properties, >et about forming a. company to acquire this block as well as tho other Mokau properties.

The promoters of this company- were naturally anxious that the proposed purchase ■of the- , freehold from the Natives should be carried out. nnd they accordingly offered to contribute some additional consideration to the.Natives, and finally it ".was nrranewl that tho' Natives should -receive, in addition to the sum of ,£25,000 in cash, .£2500 in shares in the company, and a sale was finally completed upon these terms. . .

Tt has been publicly susgested that Mr. M-Nab was a party to the obtaining of the Order-in-Council .above referred to. This suggestion has no foundation, in fact, and it was not until long after the Government had agreed to grant the Or-der-in-Conncil, and after the date of the meeting above referred to, that Mr. M'Nab became associated with the matter. ' , ■ ' ■ . '■

The purchaser from Mr. Lewis was Jfr. Mason Chambers, and it was he who pnld the. property "to the company. Mr. M'Nab first became rnnnecfed with - this block, I believe, in February last, when ho agreed to take shares in the proposed company. '. . .

■It -has been suKgesfed flfot fhe. purchase - monev received by the Native,"; was less than the value of their interest, in the block. The answer to this is that the law provides that the Maori Lund Board must satisfy itself that tho Natives are reeeiviu? the full of their interest before the transfer is passed, and that a sale may not be allowed unless the Natives receive the Government, valuation, of- that "interest. Also that Mr. Skerrett, acting for the Natives, saw nothing ..unreasonable in their sellim; for .£23,000. Further, I.am prepared to show, if necessary, by figures certified to by Messrs. A.'S. Biss and A. T. Clark, of Wellington, accountants, that on any reasonable valuation the Natives received very much more than the value of their interest in the land subject to the leases.

The net results of the final settlement of this matter are:—

(1) The Natives have received full value for their interest in the block.

(2). A State fund (the Land Transfer Assurance Fund) has been relieved from a claim rfn the part either of the 'Natives or the lessees of .££o,ooo.

(3) The parties, Native and European, connected with tho lease have been saved from -complicated and expensive litigation, ami the. sum ofvJMSOO above re. ftrred to, which lias for nearly three years (like the Mokau Block) lying idle and unproductive, has been released.

(4) Tho immediate, settlement of an area of 33,000 acres of land which has remained idle for a period of nearly thirty years is secured on terms whick require its occupation • by bona-fide settlers , in small areas without the State being involved in any way in the finance of the matter.

I would like to say that my firm had nothing whatever to do, tither with tho sale above referred to by Mr. Lewis to Mr. Chambers in January or February last of his interest in the leases, or with tho formation or operations of tho company' above referred to; also that I have not nor has any member'of my firm or any of our connections had at any time any interest in the Mokau block except to tho extent of my legal charges, and that neither the payment nor the amount of these charges was in any way dependent: upon the success of my efforts, or the amount realised from my. clients interested.

As to tho profits it is suggested tho company is to make out of tho block— these profits can only bo made by (ho excrcifo of skill and judgment and the expenditure of much capital. The past record of the members of ihe company suggests that they will make a success of the venture, but they will well earn every penny they make out of it. As to Mr. Jones's association with tho block, no member of my firm had anything to do with tho matter until after tho Supreme Court had finally decided that he had lost all interest in the leases, but I might suggest that since his claim rests solely upon the alleged misconduct of Flower, the mortgagee, he should seek compensation, not from anyone in New Zealand, but from tho Chaney Hospital of London, which receives under bequest from Flower the whole of the proceeds (something over .£15,000) of Flower's interest in the leases.

As the governors of this hospital include .Queen Alexandra, Ministers of the Crown,

and others of the leading people of England, they will doubtless give Mr. June* ii fair hearing. In conclusion I may say that any responsible public man is welcome to a perusal ot all the correspondence and paper's in niy control— I am, etc., July »1, i\ G. DALZIELL.