MR. JONES TAKES A HAND.

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

MR. JONES TAKES A HAND.

REVIEWS PARLIAMENTARY INQUIY. SUPPORTS THE STATEMENTS OF LONDON "TKUTH." Sir,—l have had tho opportunity of perusing two copies ot London "Truth" of May 17 nnd 'ii Inst, respectively, containing articles with reference to this case. In-the latter issue Sir Joseph Ward, by letter, alleges that the writer-of the article in the .prior issue "had obviously been misinformed regarding the facts and the legal position of the matter, and that tlie inferences and imputations contained therein against his Government, and particularly against the Attorney-General, are absolutely without foundation, as referenco to the shorthand record d'f the evi-' deuce taken by tho last Committee of the House of liepresentatives abundantly proves. The editor, however, is sceptical; no does not in any sense accept the ipse dixit of Sir Joseph Ward, and invites him to specify particulars of what is incorrect in the article-not liis'own ™o Ue , assertion of the statements .being absolutely without foundation." If such were the case Sir John Findlay could nave- nmple opportunity of proving it, and, as; was pointed oiit in this same case by Mr. Justice Byrne ten years ago to a lawyer named Flower, there is ample funds behind "Truth" to compensate him t°l ai s damages he has sustained. Sir John imdlay would the.i have to give his version before a public tribunal upon oath, which was not the case with his statements in the Dominion. These were carefully made in manner privileged. Lpon reading the unqualified repudiation by Sir Joseph-Ward, I again looked o™* the article ; ho complains of. I should state I was present on the evidence being taken before the committee—a copy of_ which is now before me—therefore I might fairly claim to know something about what took place,.and if 1 were asked for an opinion I should b< , compelled to disagree with the Prime Minister of New Zealand, for the reason that I cannot discover any statement in the article that is not correct in substance and in fact. Of ;«>nrse, not being a literary man X may misunderstand tho article.

As to the matter being."fully'investir gated," I say. that the evidence, to my way of reasoning, "abundantly proves" but little that is iriic. It was not taken upon oath. Nearly everv witness was interested in the other side. There were none brought by me. I was not allowed to bring evidence to disprove many statements tluit were untrue. Mr. Okey, who presented my petition, remonstrated strongly against tho chairman treating mo in such manner. My counsel 'submitted that it was unfair to prevent my calling rebutting evidence. When the right was refused me, I made the request of the chairman to be allowed to place my objections to such, incident upon paper, so that .these might be attached to the report , , but this was aiso refused, mid it may bo noted that Una. latter request is omitted from the print ot the'proceedings—as were certain most-'important documents that I requested should be included in the summary. "Upon one occasion I commented to the chairman (informally), in the prcsejic? of Mr. Oicey in tlie lobby, upon-tho false statements of the witnesses, when he repliod that. I had no remedy, as the "evidence" was privileged. In another instance the ex'amili-, ation of a witness was put.off to a future day so that another witness, not a principal, should hear his evidence. Tho reason, as put. forward by the chairman, as to why I was ndt allowed to call rebutting evidence, was that tho witnesses who 1.... ..-alleged had stated what : was riot .true had gone "down .'town" and vrquld have -,to come brick to hear it (as if-.they,.were entitled "ito hear'-it), .'and' then bo. recalled to deny it, Dr. Fimllay demonstratively thanked one of these "tor giving such good evidence in his favour.' - Yet I was not allowed Jo disprove tins "good evidence." Ono of the witnesses amused himself by whispering- into the ears of a eommitteeman at tho table, and on another day writing; on slips of paper and passing them to another comniitteeinan. This same gentleman made many assertions in the House with reference to the case that were untrue; these are the kind of witnesses that are generally excluded from inquiries until they are wanted. Tho petition, presented on August 12, HUU, was permitted to be read by the clerk upon the grounds of its being urgent and important; the prayer was that 1 be examined at the .Bar. " It was referred to the A to L.Committee to determine and report—as the chairman informed Mr.. Okey mid myself at tho out6et-as to whether or not" I should bo examined at the Bar. But the inquiry was turned into a general one, ami strung on until November 15, when 1 learned lor tho first time, and then from tho Koport itself, that "as 1 did not have any legal- interest in -tho estate, the committee could not recommend that 1 be heard at the Bar." This was the very reason why I claimed to be examined .at the uar. ihis finding, however, could huvo as well been said on tho first day as on tho last; in fact, one of the members said on tho first, day that it was not necessary - to examine witnesses to determinc the prayer. Had not Mr. Okey and myself been 60 misled as to tlio object nf* tin- committee titting, I certainly would not have proceeded with tho petition, unless the evidence were taken on oath. J o-o iniormed Mr. Okey beforehand. Neither of us had any idea that we would be so misled. There were but three sittings of about two - hours each devoted in the taking, of •evidence, and a fourth at the request of Messrs. I'indlay and Lalziell lor a purpose altogether foreign to the petition, that never ought to have been allowed, which was to' request the committee to recommend that those who I alleged had defrauded me—as reported bv the committee-should be allowed to purchase the freehold, of the properly, as JJalziell stated, to my entire exclusion It may thus be seen that 1 was kept hanging about' Parliament Buildings lor 13 weeks and live days over a matter that a fortnight—making allowance for all necessary delays-—would have been ample to dispose- of. All to suit not only the convenience, but the benefit of I'indlay nnd Balziell and their client—it certainly was not to suit me. I.was not oven consulted about these delays. This is the treatment accorded to a petition that Mr. Speaker graciously, admitted to be read by tho clerk as being urjeut and important. It might be .added that the printed evidence was not available until about a week after Parliament dispersed, so that lion, members could learn but little of the case other" than what 7 v, - as contained in the bare report. When the report was presented (o (he House, several lion, members urged tho Uovernmeut to set up the open inquiry recommended by the Legislative Council Committee in luOß,.but the Prime Minister replied that .there was no power to do so as the case was between private individuals—not between the Government and the individual; that was the difficulty, said the Premier. He cfid not then state—as he writes . to "Truth"—that the matter had been fully investigated, but he left it to be inferred that it this power existed he would set up that in. quiry. - He informed mo that the Solici-tor-General had given the opinion that a decision in the Ohineniuri case was the bar to setting up tho inquiry, and the Attorney-General, in the Council (Hansard, 1910, p. 598), and in his evidence before the committee, 1910 (p. 18), referred to rhn opinion of the SolicitorGeneral, that the Ohinemuri judgment prevented the inquiry being held, both Ministers, it will bo seen, rely on the 'Solicitor-General's opinion. 1 don't. My Information Is (1) I hat Or. Vlndlay, in October, 1!)0S, when the Council committee reported, stated lo my solicitor that the I'jnvcruiiiniit wnu!d not set u;i the inquiry, ns recommended. Ho liiado no reference to any. decision, and, as a foci, tho Ohinomiirl jiidKim':ir was not theji in existence. (2) The matter was not referred to tho Solicitor-General until the end of April or beginning of May, 1910. ' (,'l) In any case, tho decision named dons not apply In thu Mokail ennu. lor the reason ns set forth, in the petition—tho matter is one, notwithstanding what tho Premier says, where- tho Government Is eonrorned with the individual. Laying these reasons aside, however, and accepting the Premier's statement that there was no power, there is thn fact that if he wanted this matter properly inquired into, or the recommendation of the committee cari

Hod out, he could, as. was pointed out in I hi; House on November 15, readily have obtained the power, lie oll'ercil io obUin it, had it been required, in tlio JTino piiw, ami ho could have acted likewise in Shu Mokau cast'. i requeued the J'roiiiior tjy gut opinion from independent toun-.cl ea>t connected with the Uovefiimenl on qjlis cast. tie replied that lie wotilil i-»t do so. 1 imiy here state that ifwas «t Iho suggestion of Sir Jo=eph Ward Ohat I petitioned Parliament in 1111)8, ami *) assural me that any recommendation croin a committee iir iny favour should hxj rarried out.

Although the Government lias persistently refused the open inquiry that 1 maintain can Ijc lawfully set up, there whs no "ilillicully" founit* about issuing u spueial coiiiiiiissuiu in 15)09 lo hold an illegal inquuiry on the Moknu lands, the. inquiry that was held unknown to iui , under the pretext that it was pursuant to the statute applicable lo unoccupied Native lands, but to which category the Jlokau estate did not, in fact, belong. I was threatened with this process lo my injuiy, as set forth in the petition to the House, when 1 objected to Hie terms put forward, and an ho-'u. member of the? Uppi'i House had written lo the J'rcinier respecting such terms being exacted. There was a letter of mine referring to this particular circumstance—written before this illegal commission was appointed—amongst the papers before tho committee, that I requested to have printed, but it was omitted, doubtless for the best of Teasons. I siy that a more unfair document was,never written than this Stout-Palmer report. It contains many statements that.aro inaccurate. .What does not improve the position is the fact flint the committee of 1010, with the knowledge that this commission was not legally empowered to examine into the Jlokau case, and of the circumstance that it was set up, based important portions of their report upon this Stout-Palmer document. It is said in paragraph 3of the committee report that I had no legal standing to be asked by the Commission to attend before it. Assuming so; that should be the stronger reason why the Chief Justice of New Zealand should not place statements in a public document that are not correct, especially when they aro damaging to any absent man. It is upon record that I, with two lion. , members, requested t'he Prime Minister to remove this production from the table of the House, but he professed that there was a "difficulty" about removing it. I knew there was not, but made inquiry in the .proper quarter and was iuformed that the Prime; Minister had only to ask leave of tho chair to remove the paper. Instead of my request being complied with the document was placed in. the . Blue Book as a standing record against me. The committee were influenced-in their report by it, and Dr. Findlny, as a Minister, <ind his firm have made use of if as a weapon against me.

In November last -Mr. Okoy wrote to the Prime Minister taking exception to the proceedings and report of tin: mmmittco' os being .unfair in several respect". There was a "breach of privilege" debate in the House on the subject. of his letter a day or two later. In December I wrote making urgent request of (he Prime Minister to set up open inquiry, alid.giviujj my Trasons,. out- of which was that the inquiry was not a fair one. Several members also urged Sir Joseph Ward in like manner, Imt his reply wns that he had no power, ijt is therefore inexplicable how ho could inform "Truth" .that the case had been fully investigated. Possibly, however, Sir. Joseph Ward considers, the finding of the majority of a party committee to bo a full investigation, but it has to be remembered that that quantity had been secured beforehand in the persons of the Minister for Mines, the Government Whip, and the chairman, with two vote. ■ Therefore the inquiry from .this point of vview can scarcely bo considered a: full and fair one. I had no one on the committee to specially represent my interests. The recommendation of the Legislative Council 'Committee, 190S, for inquiry by competent tribunal, and that of the committee of the i-Jouse, MO, that in anv doalings with the properly my. claims to equitable consideration should- bo clearly defined, and-the strong representations for inquiry of lion, members in , the House alter tho committee's report—named bv hir Joseph Ward in "Truth"—had beeii brought up, have all been ignored by the Croveniment. Irrespective, however (if m /. , . ntD ™ sts > i' would bo to the interests fi lu c Ictors1 ctors of tho « ntir " Dominion that the history of this case—particularly the relations of the Government and its members with tho property during tho last three years-should be known? and that before tho present House dissolved, ineso can only be ascertained by open inquiry upon oath, hitherto refused and by competent men free from political influence.-! am, «te., , r , T , J- JONES. Mokau, July 12, 1911. ■■ PROFESSION AND PRACTICE. GOVERNMENT'S INCONSISTENCY. CHHISTCHUBCH "PRESS" OPINIONS. IBy I'elceraph.-Specia! CorresDoucent.l ■n <m .. , Christchur ch, July 21. lUe Press dealing editorially with the Mokau Block affair, and the sale of the land to a single individual, and subsequently to a syndicate, remarks:— L-ct it be borne in mind that this huge land transaction could not hSve been 'carried out except with the help of a Government winch has co a large extent kept itHf in power by denouncing the "large landowner, and which has persistently refused to open up. the Native Janets to the small scttleiv The very Order-in-Louneil enabling this job to be perpetrated was signed by Sir James Carroll who. only a few days ago was protesting almost witli tears in-his eyes (hat the nrst essential was to enable "his people"- to keep their land, and tryiii" to excite prejudice against-European-"land-lords: by -circulating the most preposterous notions about the areas of laud in the hands of individual owners. There is, we confess, something almost humorous in the fact that the chairman of the company which now owns this huge and V, n .x- aljle block of hml i* Mr. ifobert JlAab, the ex-Minister for Lands-, the author of that precious anti-frtehold Bill Mncn the Government were' supposed to have "nailed to the mast," but which they were only too glad to haul down, hir James Carroll, in the official defence which he has put forth in reply to Mr. Massey, gives reasons why'he thinks the sale was uf advantage to the Native;, but entirely ignores the finding o£ the coinmission that ri'terves t-hould be made for occupation by'the Native owners. lie also completely faiU to explain why the (.loverniiient did not buy the land and cut it up for settlement instead of allowing it to be acquired by a syndicate for the purpo.-e of male at* a'high price. Here w-e have a Government who profess to regard the ownership of large estates- as a (•rime deliberately assisting a syndicate, to acquire a very large and valuable estate, with the object of exploiting thft-lMim-fide i-ettler who wants to secure a small farm,for himself. Apparently they look' upon the landowner who works his land, and employs labour a| an enemy of the State to be punished with vindictive taxation, and haravsrd iti- every possible wn>. but (ho land shark who bin's land from the Natives at a low price with the object of H-llinrj it at a nigh one is, it would foem, a public benefactor to be rewarded with Orders-in-Conncil which, with a stroke of the pen,, will put thousands of pound.? nn the saleable value of the property. We wonder if the Natives knew tlip ftrder-in-Council was to be issued, and if they still think Iheyjiave been luirly rro-ated. The "News" snys:—lt is understood (he Government actually initiated negotiations with the Natives fnr (he purchase, but "for some , incomprehensible vmi'on they were allowed to drop." If this is true, it is another very-fit subject l>.r infiii'.ry when Hif House meet?. The public would ,il»o like to know whether any more Native lands .-ire gain;: in (ho same wav. Mr. Ties'; himself, onre a member of Jho Ministry, thonjh only for a short linie. made a voniewJi.il , remarkable s-popt'li in (hp TTon-c h~\ se??ion wllieh sopiiis In flinw tint; Ilio Mokn;i cr.=e by no niMn? stands ilone. Tbe H'put- of tho snrplu* Nntiv? InmU in the North M-iml is nno of (ho fir-t planks | in Mr. Ma«?oy's nlatform. but b>- fottlonifnt h" rarati« thoir disposal in snnll Ink lo lmna-fido sottlors with the option of noriuirinT the freehold. r"f allowing ovndiratoi l-o mop up bu»c lilocke prnotionllv without competition in order to nut lnrce profit? infn fhc pockets of a few favoured individuals.