MOKAU LANDS.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1569, 12 October 1912, Page 14

MOKAU LANDS.

CASE OF MR. JOSHUA JONES. OLD RECORDS PRODUCED. Tho inquiry by a Joint Parliamentary Committee into the petition of Mr. Joshua Jones, of Mokau, Taranaki, was continued yesterday, the Hon. J. Eigg presiding.

Mr. Jones continued the statement in amplification of his petition upon which ho had been engaged for the three preceding sitting days. Mr. T. W. I'isher, Under-Secretary for Aative Affairs, attended at the request of the committee, and produced a file containing the Gazette uotice dated August 11, 1885, which empowered Mr. Jones to conclude his negotiations with tho Natives for the Mokau lauds: A copy of the notico was ehoivn - signed "J. Ballauce."

Mr. Jones: That is not the document. The document I spoke of was a written' paper. I think it was in the handwriting of T. W. Lewis. It was before this (the Gazette notice) was printed. He (Lewis) took me iu to Sir Robert Stout, and Sir Robert Stout signed it in my presence, after putting a number of questions to mo about the division.

'Mr. Bell: Is that a copy of tho document that you saw signed? Mr. Jones: Yes; but the document I saw signed was written. I expect that this is a copy, and that is Mr. Ballance's signature.

Mr. Fisher said that he thought Mr. Jones was alluding to a minute from the Under-Secretary for Native Affaire. He went on to explain that the Gazette notice had been sent to .the Chief Judge of the Native Land Court for revision if necessary. Subsequently the document was minuted to Mr. Stout (then Prime Minister), and it came from him with a signed note to the effect that the clause as amended carried out what he assumed was desired. The note waa dated August 11, ISBS.

Mr. Bell: That is what I asked—is there a draft?

Mr. Fisher: It is not a draft. It is a minute from the Native Minister to the Prime Minister.

Mr. Jones taid that the document absolutely bore out his contention on the point ill dispute. He thanked the chairman for sending for tho papers. The Stout-Palmer Report. The chairman now asked Mr. Jones whether he could produce an official record of tho decision of the Native Affairs Committee that the Stout-Palmer report was illegal. Mr. Jones said that he had obtained an interview with the' Prime Minister, first sending him word that he would not consult him about tho Mokau caso, but would only put a question. He asked Mr. Massey whether he remarked the decision of tho Native Affairs Committee. The Prhuo Minister replied "undoubtedly, it was public property that the report was thrown out by the committee." Mr. Jones added that he proposed to call Mr. Herries and Mr. Massey as witnesses.

Mr. Jones next quoted from Hansard, October 27, 1911, the report of a speech in which Mr. Jennings, then member for Taumarunui, Eaid that Mr. Jones had been to some extent placed in an awkward position, and'that, in face'of what Mr. D-ilziell had stated—that he had oLtaintd the opinion of three King's Counsel in the Dominion (Mr. Bell, Mr. Hosking, and Mr. Skerrett) to the effect that if the judgment given by Chief Justice Stout and Judge Palmer had been subjected to legal scrutiny, ho (Mr. Jones) would liot have lost some of his property —Jtr. Jones was entitled to some consideration.

The Hon. J. T. Paul asked Mr. Jones if he was prepared to produce the decision of the committee.

Mr. Jones: I have just tried to explain that Mr. Massey recollects it, and that I shall call him to give evidence. Mr. Paul: There must be an official record of the report being thrown out. Can you find HP Mr. Jones: 1 was stopped by the chairman (of the Native Aftairs Committee). .Hβ said: "We won't allow you to' refer to that document. Wβ have thrown it out."

After some further questions, Mr. Jones said that he could not at the moment produce an official record of the committee's decision concerning tho report.

Mr. Jones put in a letter from Mr. Buckley (a member of the English Chancery Bar), in which it was stated that it had been held that the' Stout-Palmer report was not a judgment. Ho next produced a printed copy of a letter from Lord Justice Collins, Master of the Rolls, stating that a rehearing could not be granted of the action which had been taken in London, and that Mr. Jones's test remedy would be a .civil action in the New Zealand Conrts. Going on to speak of his previous attempts to obtain an inquiry Mr. Jones said that when the Legislative Council Committee in 1908 recommended an inquiry Sir John Findlay held that the Government had no power to grant it. From this opinion he (Mr. Jones) dissented. If Sir Joseph Ward had required additional power he could easily havo taken tho same action as he did in the Hine case and got his commission of inquiry. The Original Leases. When he entered into negotiations with tho Natives originally he would not like to say how many hundreds of thousands of acres thoso particular Natives owned. As a matter of fact they owned millions. The terms of his leaso were generous to the Natives in view of the fact that no one else was anxious to go on to tho land, and of the further fact that those Nativee were not at all in need of land. They had 'even wished to Rive him the block, but the Hon. J. Sbcahan had said on behalf of tho Government that he did not think that would bo wise. If the Government helped him to get tho freehold of the land for no consideration there would have been an outcry.

Ho complained apiin that the Order-in-Council of 1911 empowering some persons to acquire the freehold of the land over which ho claimed to have leasehold rights had been kept secret from him. It was not published until Borne time after it was issued. If he had known it was to bo issued ho would havo gone to Lord Islington, one of the most upright men that had ever come out of England, and he was sure the Governor would never have sanctioned it. He pointed out also that the Order-in-Council did not throw the right to purchase open to all the world, but only to Herrman Lewis and his friends. Tin's, he said, was evidence that thero was a bargain between Lewis and his friends on the one hand and the Government of the day on the other.

Mr. Bell: Do you say you had a legal right to thoso lands at the time they were alienated under tho Order-in-Couii-cil?

Mr. Jones: Not a legal right; but I had an actionable right. T am not contending that I had a ripht.

The committee adjourned until Tuesday at 10.30 a.m.