MOKAU AGAIN.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1551, 21 September 1912, Page 7

MOKAU AGAIN.

Mv J, JONES PETITIONS

PARLIAMENT.

A PIONEER'S MISFORTUNES,

FVU INQUIRY DEMANDED,

Tt» (anions Mokftu cafe, which was tho wfeieet of (i .protracted i'arlimucntarv inUit year and Ims been tho subject uuuy other inquiries in tho past, has been brought before Parliament; tais time' by means of a petition irom ilr. Joshua Jones, which was presented tv> the House of Representatives yesterday by Mr. C: K. ■'Wilson, member for 'Xtuimarunui. The petition is a. longthy (iooument covering, twenty olosely-wntten foolscap pages. It deals, in' detail, with tho complicated transactions which havo tnken place in tho Mokau lands sinco Mr.. Jones : arrived in New Zealand in 1876; with : thp intensive litigation •to wlnoh eonie of theso transactions gavo rise, and with the various Parliamentary and otuer inquiries that havo been, held in reference to the disputed title to the Mokau lands. ..

Mr. Jones states iu his petition that he entered into friendly negotiations with tho King Country Natives in 1876 with a.view to .settling at Mokau in'Taranaki, and in,tho following year was the medium of:negotiations between:the leading chief of the King Country and SirGeo. Grey which led to a friendly understanding that has since .remained unbroken. Mr. Jones' claims tkat. the ; cementing of friendship between, Sir Ueo. Groy and the Natives;and the. opening of the King Country at Mokau on tho.south by his personal' visit to Waifara and at Tβ Kopua on the north, led to tho establishment of permanent pcaco and the disbanding of armed forces, thereby saying the colony an enormous annual expenditure.' Mr. Jones goes on to state- that in consideration, of thoso services he was assured personally nnd in 'writing by the Government of its support in negotiating for the lease of a block of land on tho south bnnk' of the Mokail river. In, 18.92 Mr. 'Jones' went to .London in search of. capital with which to work his property. , In London' he employod and entered into an...agreement with-a.solici-tor named Wickhnm Flown-. Petitioner describes in detail his subsequent litigation with' Flower, and states that |in July, 1904,' ho accepted, with certain reservations, a compromise under which Flower surrendered all claim to the property in terms'-of payment. Wickham Flower died in September,' 1901, -and his executors then assumed control of his estate, holding tho same pecuniary. relations to Mr. Jones's interests as did the deceased. ..... .

Mr. Jones claims that, tho executors prevented his. dealing with the property, and so;prevented-his'carrying out his obligations in connection with the repayment of mortgage moneys on the Mokau Estate.- ■•.■■.'•.-....".' .' i';. ,":,'..'..-"..'' Returns-to New Zealand. , >

Eventually petitioner-. rohirned to this Dominion, to enter an action .here, leaving instructions to'his solicitors to allow the. English action to lapse. • Mr. Justice Edwards."'referred the case, to tho, Full 'Court,' , which 1 , without calling upon the other side,land upon precisely the same papers as were before the English Chancery Judge, save, and except a dummy transfer of the.property by.tho executors' agents to a person named Herman Lewis, ordered . removal .of a. , careat, refused petitioner the right .of trial by' action given, him by. the, English Court,-and also refused him leave to appeal to-the Privy Council. In May, 1911, the, Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) refused' leave to resnter tho action. Petitioner adds that the Chief Justice,'who was one of tho bench that ridiculed tho application for leave to a'ppearto the .Privy' Council on July 20, 1908, gave leave in. this instance, and there the. case remained, as petitioner had noHhe.mfecins to:prosecute the appeal.

; . ;. An Inquiry on Terms. Mr. Jones continues'that when the Full Co.urt.gaye i.ts: decision on July 20, 1908, the-oSituation, Pnnie (SfrmTofieph WardJy.Twho-said-.that he .knew tho-hardships- , of the case,, but:that the, Government could' not molest the judgment" of tho Court. He advised: ...Mr,,. Jpaes.r.-however;. to • petition Parliament, andr sta+cd' that"he "would be' glad. tp. give -effect' to any.-recomrfierida-tion njade by a committee in petitioner's, favour. Mr./Jonos,- inl9oß, petitioned' the' Legislative Council, which held a short inquiry, and recommended the Government to.set lip inquiry by Royal Commission or other competent tribunal and ing'such' inquiry steps be'-qt once taken to_prevent any further, dealings with the' Mokau lands. The report ■ passed the Couttcil on October. 9 without discussion. Petitioner ..instructed.his: solicitor (Mr. Treadwell) to move tho'Minister in charge of .the report, Dr.-(now Sir John) Findlay, to get the .commission of inquiry set up as';soon as possible." Mr. Treadwell informed him on thosamo day that be had seen Dr. -Pindlay, who had informedhim that the Government would not.give effect to the recommendations and that no inquiry would be sat up, nor nny steps taken to, prevent the property from being further dealt with, and further-that no legislation , would bepassed by tho Governmentfor petitioner's relief, but that Dr.'FinU--l.'iy^placed..certain terms of compromise with jespect to the property on behalf of Herrman Lewis that haa been approved by the Hon. Mr; Carroll, on behalf of the Natives, before him,for petitioner to consider. -vDr; Findlay, petitioner goes on to state, instructed Mr. Trend well to take the terms to • Mr. Dalziell,- Dr. Findlay's partner, and put them in proper form-upon- paper,'and that he and Mr. Dalziell see- Dri Findlay together when this had beon .done. This direction was carried out, and Messrs. Treadwell and Dalziell air Dr. Findlay together within a day or two, to petitioner's knowledge. ■ Mr. Jones states that he was astounded when .'< he was■ informed that the Minister had refused the inquiry, and demanded'terms on behalf of Lewis. He questioned Mr. Treadwell- ns to tho .accuracy oi-the Minister- acting also as solicitor for his firm's clients. Mr..Tread-, well'informed: him that tho Minister did certainly so'act, and further that,. although the Minister did not say ?o in words, he left him to draw tho inference that if the petitioner did not accept tho terms , , he should get nothing from tho Mokau -Estate. ' This , circumstance recalled to petitioner's memory that l)r. Findlay, i speaking' in" the Legislative Council on August 25' previously, had condemned his appeal to .Parliament as unconstitutional, although ho had been advised by the-Prime Minister to adopt that course. , ■ :■ " Public and Speculators. ' -Th« inquiry was not and never has been held, Mr. Jones,; goes on to state, neither hns the. land Iwcn.protected from further dealings. On- the contrary the leasehold, which Sir J. Carroll had repeatedly declared more valuable thnn tho freehold..- was by tho improper influence of. Dr. .rindlay ns a.Minister and .with bis. firm, lillowed to pnss through" the dummy purchnfors, their client Ilerrman }x'Ti - ii, to certain speculators who were in the position of. finding money, and the freehold was, by virtue of a-certain Order-in-Council, allowed to pnss into the hands of tho dummy purchaser of the leasehold—wh> alwve wus named in the Ordor-~for-.the benefit of the speculators above referred to, Tho pretest'advanced was that the transaction was in tho pub-lic-interest, whereas it was directly inimical to that interest, the Ktelo having bought the freehold for £U,WIO and paid deposit on the purchase. At best, petitioner- remark?, the transaction win only bo viewwl ill the ratio of one for the public aiuK.ten for tho speculator. He submits that the transaction would not have taken place had not Dr. Finding in the interest, of.jus firm and tho client, block-d the inquiry recommended 'in IMS. Petitioiior- uexl. remarks that on KoVembar" 6, 1908, Mr.- Treadwell informed him that -Mr. Dalzipll hnd called upon him, and stated that in rouwquence «f : -a "iiianlw of. tho Upper Chamber hnvins communicated with the Prime Minister respecliiiß the terms-put forward on oehnlf of Herrromi Dr. Fiivllay hnd (kwM to send the case to a Stout Commission, with a threat that thi-j would prove to petitioner's damage, An Inquiry. In May, IDO!j,-petitioner-'noted in an 'Auckland paper of tho preceding March that the Stout-I'alnicr Commission hod held inquiry into the Mokau lands—which inquiry petitioner had received no notice of. It had. been held unknown to him. Mr. Jones remarks that he. has no reason to doubt, that this procedure was pursuant'to tho intimation given liy Mi , . Dahiell ta Mr. Treadwoll-the Stout-

Ngata Commission having completed its services and dissolved, and thp StoutPalmer Commission set up specially for this case. Mr. Jones contends that the commission had no jurisdiction to deal with the Mokau lands, and avers that it is impossible to placo a lenient construction on tho action of the commissioners, "inasmuch as they did not seek the truth whero they might have.known it could be obtained, whereas they examined all and. sundry who desired to profit by an improper report." In May, 1009, Mr. Jones state, ho , remonstrated to tho Prime Minister (Sir Joseph Ward) against tho procedure represented by tho setting up of the Stout-i'aluior Commission, bui received no satisfaction beyond "the usual vacant reply" from that gentleman. In October, 1909, he was strongly supported by two hon. members in requesting that tho report of the commission should be removed from the tablo of the House. Sir Joseph Ward stated that. ho would make inquiries on the eubject, but petitioner says he is in a position to believe that no such inquiries were made. "Your petitioner submits," Mr. Jones continues, "that tho Chief Justice cither knew or ho did not know thatj there was no power in the commission to inquire into the Mokau land dealings. If ho did not know there can be no plea for such ignorance inasmuch as the so-called inquiry appears to have been directed solely against myself, irrespective of power or truth; if-ho did know and produced the report of the nature I allege it to be— which-undoubtedly he did—so touch the worse for public morality, and with the dtepest humility I would urge upon Parliament to at once grapple.with this ugly feature, and thr.t, in justice to the entire community as well as to this humble petitioner." • '

/'A Noxious Weed," Mr.. Jones states that during the session of 1911 a committee of the House of Representatives, making a special inquiry into tho Mokau transaction, rejected the Stout-Palmer report from its deliberations upon the ground that it.was an illegal production—"a noxious weed," —whereas during the same session tho Government referred to it as tho basis for deeming tho Mokau titles to be void or voidable, and thereupon issuing "tho notorious Order-in-Council to allow of the freehold passing." "The Commission recommended for' mo in 1908,", Mr. Jones continues, "was refused, and this illegal, commission—set up.'unknown to me—made use of to my detriment." Petitioner next states that in April, 1910; he received a cable message from London offering to' build a harbour at Mokau on Government plans, and work tho minerals on the property. Upon this cablegram Sir Joseph Ward agreed with him verbally, in the presence of Mr. Treadwell, to purchase the freehold of the entire i estate from tho Natives-for and grant petitioner extended leasehold terms of the mineral? in consideration of the harbour being constructed, and an area of surface land for peti-' tioner's family, leavihg the Government somo 46,500 acres freehold upon which to placo settlers. The alleged holder of the leases was to be compensated under Section 375 of the Native Land Act. The Hon. J. Carroll agreed likewise, but a few days later informed Mr. Hine, M.P., Mr. Treadwell, .and petitioner that the proposal had been rejected by Cabinet, and would not be carried out—that' the caso would be sent to a Eoyal Commission. Petitioner ■ asked . whether Dr. Findlay was at the Cabinet meeting, and Mr. Carroll said that he was. Petitioner asked Sir Joseph. Ward why le could not obtain tho inquiry recommended by the Council Committee in 1908, Sir Joseph Word replied that tho Government must have overlooked the matter. Mr. ■ Treadwoll, who was pres6n f , said that Dr. Findlay had informed nun at tho time that tho Government would not, sot up any inquiry. Sir Joseph Ward replied: "That is not my view. I never land so, I promised, Mr. .Jones the inquiry—there is no reason why ho should not have it." ■'■' . •

Recommendations Ignored, Mr.-Jon.es continues that he petitioned Parliament in 1910, and the A to L Committee recommended tho Government to assist in bringing,about an aniicable urii derstanding ibet.weeAnthei ipartirs-. with." aview to-settling the'land. Tho (ioimnitteerecptamendod also that the petitioner's claims; to equitable consideration should bo very clearly defined. The Government gavajio effect;tb this recommendation, but treated it with the same'indifference as it treated tbo recommendation of 1008.

Pfltitiouer states.tbat.the issuing of the Order-in-Council, mentioned above, was studiously kept secret "from Mr. Okey, who was at the titno iu communication with tho Prime Minister undw thu pledge made'in tho, House that as soon as the Cabinet had decided upon any modo of dealing with the property hon. members would bo informed thereof.

On December he. saw the Prime Minister iu the oiitei lobby of the House, Sir Joseph Ward txpressed regret that be had been so busy during the session, and could give 1.0 consideration to tho Mokau matter, but that if petitioner caruo to Wellington after his (Sir Joseph Ward's) returu from Kotormi, he would arrange the business—on a similar basis, petitioner understood, to that of a previous arrangement, in which Mr. Treadwell was in treaty with, him. Sir Joseph Ward did not mention the Order-in-Coun-cil, much less that he had assented to tho issue of it three dnys previously. Petitioner spoke also to the Hon. Mr. Carroll about this time, and ho, too, kept tho matter of the Order-in-C'ouncil secret. When .the Prime Minister returned from Rotorua, petitioner came down from Mokau,' but hnd much difficulty in seeing the Prime Minister. On seeing him be requested that in pursuance of a previous arrangement, tho Premier should purchase tho land from the Natives, and then deal with petitioner. The Prime Minister said that ho could not do so— Mr. Salruond had so advised him. Petitioner requested him to set u> tho inquiry recommended in IDOB. Hβ said that Mr. Salmond hnd udyised him that there was no power to do so. Ho declined to get tho opinion of some counsel outside tho Govcrnmout. .Sir Joseph Ward did not mention" that he had consented to tho issue of the Order-in-Council

Sir Joseph Ward's Denial, .. ' Petitioner > mentions that Sir Joseph Ward gave a blank denial, in the House ot Keproscntuliycs, '« liis statement about the Prime Minister saying that he would arrange, tho business for him. Petitioner, however, maintains the truth of what ho has stated, , In reference to the large sums of money spoken of as liabilities on- tho Mokau' property, Mr. Jones states that ho has received only a comparatively small sum personally, uud that the amounts have mainly been created by "exorbitant charges and illegal claims put up by the solicitor-<l;'lo.wer, his accomplice TraVer?, and those associated in the- transaction— that a raoro recent instance is the Flower-Traveis combination effecting a mortgage through tho 'dummy purchaser, Herrman Lewis, to one Thos. Gco. Macarthy for the sum of <C 25,271 Bs, 2d., tho mid Macarthy never having loaned a shilling on or in connection with tho property, nor having any unsati&fied claim or any person m connection therewith, inother item of the liability," the ;-etitioner continues, "is tho sum of .£IOOO said to bb advanced by the ex-Attorriey-Oen-oral's firm of Findlay and Dalziell in order to.pay themselves to carry on, tho law proceedings on behalf of Herman Lowie. Mr. Dalziell states in the papers, or in evidence, that it is the etiquette ot the profession in this country to advunco money for such purposes." r Petitioner states finally :■ "That Dr. Findlay, apparently in view of justifying his actions in connection with tho Mokau lands in tho interest of his firm of Findby and Dalziell and the client Hrrnuaii Lewj.s mado statements in tho Legislative Council oii August 21, 1908, and Aujjiift I".- 1010, and beloro the A to L Committee of tho il.oii.~o in -1010, Unit w<rc prejudicial, misleading, oml untrue, oml did fiirthnr produce (he wilicitor Treadwell, wlm had acted for me (petitiouor) in Hip (wu before the A to I, Cbininittcc in 1010, i» stale what, both he and Treadwell knew to be mislcnding and prejudicial to the inquiry. That particularly tho stntenipnl fli' Dr. Jr'indlay in the Legislative Council on August 17, 1010, thnt. he supported a motion in the Cabinet for inquiry into the Mokau case, should lie strictly fnvosligatiml, my iillogiition being thnt the -.Ir.tcn'.ent is only 'half tho truth,' and the facts coiicralcd." Mr. Jones asks that tho House shall direct inquiry into the .subject matter ol his petition nr.d grant him such relief ns may stem meet.