THE MOKAU LAND DEAL.

King Country Chronicle, Volume V, Issue 406, 21 October 1911, Page 5

THE MOKAU LAND DEAL.

FINDING OF NATIVE COMAiITrKE. G0 VE RNM E N T'S STA TE Ml SNT CORRECT. MONOPOLY IM PUTATIONS AGAi NS T O F FICEUS KEJ EC TE D. The report of the Native Affairs Committee on the Mokau lands transaction was presented to the House on Thursday afternoon. The committee finds thai the statement of the Government as to details of transactions prefented to Parliament earlier in Ilia session correctly sets out the facts relatin.g to the Government's association with the case. As to Mr Masaey's statement of the position already pubished, thy committee says that it correctly sets out the Government's position except- - ]. That the limitation provisions of the Native Land Act were avoided by the issue of an Order-in-Gouncil, whereas in fact the Order-in-Council was issued pursuant to such limitation provisions.

2. The statement that the meeting of native owners was not properly represented was disproved.

R. The statement to the effect that the company or members of the company will possess practically a monopoly of coal-bearing areas on the west coast of the Taranaki provincial district was contrary to the evidence produced before the committee. The report of the committee on to say that the only additional facts which the committee deems it necessary to refer to are that the lessee finally acquired the interest of the natives in the block's for the sum of £2500 in cash and the sum of £2500 in fully paid-up shares in a company having a capital of .£200,000 formed to acquire the Mokau-Mahaka-tino blocks and properties. This company paid in cash and shares in its capital the sum of £85,000 to Mr Mason Chambers, for the Mokau-Mahakatino blocks, MiMason Chambers having purchased from the lessee, Mr Herman Lewis, the sarre property for the sum of £71,000 in cash and £4OOO in fully paid-up shares in the company. The sum paid to the natives for their interest in the land was greater than the actuarial value of the interests of the natives burdened with the leases, assuming the purchase money obtained by the lessee to be the true value of the block.

Suggestions were made before the committee reflecting upon certain departmental officers concerned in this transaction, but the committee reports that it is satisfied that these suggestions were entirely disproved, and that the transaction was conducted throughout by the departmental officers strictly in accordance with the Native Land Act and regulations.