The Dominion. TUESDAY, OCTOBEB 21, 1911. THE MOKAU TRANSACTION.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1267, 24 October 1911, Page 4

The Dominion. TUESDAY, OCTOBEB 21, 1911. THE MOKAU TRANSACTION.

Tiie Native Affairs Committee has succeeded in burying the real issues of importance in tho Mokau transaction under a huge mass of evidence which not one person in ten thousand will read. As to the Committee's own finding on the matter it is only what was generally expected. The Committee could find very little that they could question in Mr.. Massey's presentation of the facts, and that little they made the most of. On the other hand the remarkable attitude of the President of the Maori Land Board in dealing with this particular matter, they declined to express any adverse comment upon at all. Yet we venture to think there is.hardly any responsible tribunal that could be thought of which would have passed over this aspect of the Mokau transaction without strong comment. The President of the Board seems to have had some quite remarkable ideas as to where his responsibilities began and ended. His sublime faith in Mr. Dalziell, of Messrs. Findlay and Dalziei.l, counsel for Mr. Herkman Lewls, the would-be purchaser of the Native interest which it was the duty of tho Maori Land Board to safeguard, is most touching. Mr. Dalziell's influence throughout was shown to have been very great, and it is not at all surprising if this should have given rise to tho impression that his association with a member of the Government was not without its weight in smoothing away obstacles which others less fortunately situated would probably have found a serious hindrance. For instance, when Mn. BowiiEß, tho President of the Board, was under examination concerning that very curious circumstance that the land was disposed of before Mic Order-in-Council authorising the sale w:is published as provided by law, lie admitted that ho had got his information respecting the-Ordcr-in-Council horn.. Ma., Dalzieu., . Later he vori-.

find it from his head office, but the alienation of the land was confirmed on the assurance of Mr. Dalziell, who was acting for an interested party, that the Order-in-Council was in existence. The evidence on this is worth quoting. [Vide ofiicial report.]: J[r. Masscy. Aro you aware, as President of the Board, that the. Order-in-Oouncil did not appear in the. Gazette till several (lavs after the confirmation by the. board tool; placer—Yes. Jiow did you know the Order-in-Council vras in existence ■ —I was advised by Mr. Dalziell and through my head office. . . Uavo vou the letter from your head office?—l have a telegram. Will you nut th.it in?— Yes. Mr. Hemes: What is the dato of the telegram ?—The 28th Jlarch. -Mr. JFassey: Are vou quite sure of that?-Ycs. And the confirmation had been agreed to on tho 25th March ?—The telegram roads: "Mokau Order-in-Council signed. Will include this week's Gazette." Jt is dated March 28. There is another one here, dated March 2i: "Mokau not yet returned from Governor." It ree.ns to amount to this: that you as President and the board itself confirmed the alienation of this laud without knowing officially that an Order-in-Coiin-cil had been issued?—We knew that the matter had been before tho Kxecutivc. Hoiv did you know that?— From Mr Daiziell. Me. Dai.ziell, of the firm of Findlay and Dalziell, in fact, scorns to have been the mainspring of the whole business. It is almost ludicrous at times to note the utter helplessness of those associated with tho Mokau transaction in the absence of this gentleman. The President of tho Native Land Board—a Government servant—it will perhaps be recalled, accepted a position as trustee for the purchasing company at a small remuneration, the reason given for this unusual course being that it would ensure tho limitation provisions in respect of the disposal of the land being carried out. Yet, when questioned concerning certain mortgages siricc placed upon the property, lie displayed the most profound ignorance and fell back on— Mr. Dalziell. We again quote from the official report: Mr. Herrics: You have mortgaged the land "—Yes. To whom ?—I really have not the information here. I would suggest that Mr. Dalzitll could furnish all information. . . . What was tho amount of the mortgage money?—l could not say without reii'renco to tho deeds. You have no recollection?— No. I You signed the deed, yot do not remember?—l do not remembsr tho amount. . . You, a C'ml Servant, hold it fthe land] in trust for tho purchaser—for Herrinan Lewis?— Yes, or his assigns. And in that capacity you executed two mortgages, but did not take sufficient interest in it to see how much money it was worth?—No, it did not interest* me at all. The President, who, by the way, it should be explained, secured the permission of his Department to act as a paid trustee for the purchasers of the Mokau Block, explained further that a caveat had been lodged against the title in order to ensure that the block would be cut up, and the board had employed Messrs. Findlay, Dalziell, and Co., counsel for tho purchaser, to act also as counsel for tho board in lodging the caveat. When pressed as to why Messrs. Fikdlay, Dalziell and Co. were employed, the President explained that it was done because that firm had done everything connected with the matter. Again, when asked who paid the rates and taxes on this land, of which he is the registered owner, tho President of the Board stated that he did not know who paid them now. He had discussed the matter with Mn. Dalziell and he had undertaken to sec that they wore paid. And so on throughout the whole piece. Mr. Dalziell, of Messes. Findlay and Dalziell, seems to have dominated the whole situation. He was able to induce the Government to giant the Order-in-Council by moans of which the Mokau transaction was made possible; his influence with the Maori Land Board appears to have been quite remarkable; and later he appears as a power in connection with the new ownership of the land. The Native Affairs Committee in all the strange happenings and unusual procedure connected with tho Mokau transaction see nothing strange or calling for comment. They express no opinion on the question of whether the Natives' interests have been sacrificed as has been asserted; they make no comment on the fact that the Order-in-Council which is designed in part to give public warning of intention to permit alienation of Native land was not made public until after the land was actually sold; they ignore tho fact that Mn. Lewis, who bought from the Natives, re-sold at a profit to Mr. Mason Chambers; who in turn re-sold at a- profit to the company; who in turn expect to sell at a profit to the farmers who want the land. Why did not the Government exercise their option of purchase and save these middlemen's profits? The middlemen arc not to blame: they acted quite legally and properly. But the Government went out of their way to assist them to make the profits they did—an exceptional course was followed in circumstances that occasion grave doubts as to whether cither the public interest or the interests of the Natives received proper consideration. And the Native Affairs Committee buries the subject in a mass of evidence which the public will never find time to read and supplements this with a colourless finding. As for that unfortunate gentleman, Me. Joshua

Jones: the Committee could hardly in any finding respecting hi's I. position iu the ..matter, because . his

claims did not. come within the order of reference; but they might at least have offered some comment or explanation regarding the somewhat startling correspondence between Mr. Jo.ne.s and the Committee which is attached to the evidence and which was not made public during the proceedings. We shall probably have something to say on this point later.