MOKAU INQUIRY.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXIII, Issue 1035, 26 August 1911, Page 3

MOKAU INQUIRY.

Wellington, Aug, 24,

The Mokau inquiry was continued this morning by the Native Affairs Committee.

Mr Dalziell, of the firm of Findlay and Dalziell, was permitted to remain in the room and ask questions of witnesses in connection with any allegations made against his firm. H. D. Bell, called by Mr Massey, staled that be represented legally the majority of the Native owners of the block. At the first meeting of the assembled native owners of the block a proposal to sell was rejected by an overwhelming majority. They considered the price offered was too low , 77 per cent of the natives were against the sale of the block. The second meeting was .equally futile. Someone prevented him being informed of the alteration of opinion of the natives, who consequently had no independent legal advice as to whether they should submit to the terms the Maori Land Board had allowed to be submitted. With regard to the alleged claim of ,£BO,OOO against the natives under the Land Transfer Assurance Fund, if the claim was valid it still existed. The purchase by Hermann Lewis had not extinguished it. The natives were induced to sell the laud, thereby ridding themselves of the possibility of litigation. His whole point was that the native owners never had independent legal advice when the sale was made. The Maori Laud Board instead of protecting the natives, did all it could to push the sale through. There never was any substance in the claim under the Laud Transfer Assurance Fund.

Sir James Cairoll objected to the evidence that the Maori Land Board had forced the sale through. Mr Bell said the Board had coerced recalcitrant owners by holding meetings till they came round iu opinion. He did not suggest that the Board did not belies the transaction was in the interests of the natives.

In reply to a further query from Sir James Carroll, he said he was perfectly certain the natives had not leceived a fair price for the land.

Mr Bell said he wished to make it distinctly understood that he had never offered an opinion as to whether the Government had or h?d not acted rightly in the matter.

Mr Manier asked witness if the Government would have experienced more difficulties in the purchase of the block than Mr Lewis had. Witness answered iu the affirmative, as Mr Lewis Lad combined the interests of the natives with his own, whereas the Government would have had to deal with Mr Lewis and the natives.

In reply to Mr Dalziell, Mr Bell said if there was anything in the assurance claim his (Dalziell’s) firm had done a gross injustice to the natives in the matter of the purchase of the property for ,£25,000 The Committee adjourned till Wednesday.