THE MOKAU LANDS

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIV, Issue 40, 9 August 1911, Page 8

THE MOKAU LANDS

DISCUSSION IN THE HOUSE. STATEMENT BY ACTING-PREMIER. By Telegraph—Press " Wellington, Last Night. In the House of Representatives this afternoon Sir James Carroll made a statement about the Mokau lands. In reply to Mr. Massey he said the matter was first brought under the Government's notice by a letter dated Septem-

ber 25, 11)08, from the solicitor for Mr. Herman Lewis, the registered owner of the leases, formerly held by Mr. Jones. The letter stated the lessee was willing to join with the native owners in any scheme which would facilitate the immediate settlement of the block, and it was suggested that a native commission, consisting of Sir Robert Stout and the Hon. Mr. Ngata, should enquire into the matter with a view of the area being disposed of under the Native Lands Set-

tlement Act, 1907. It was also suggested that the respective values of the interests of natives and lessees be determined by an independent tribunal. Just then Mr. Jones petitioned Parliament, and Mr. Lewis' application was hung up in the hope that he and Mr. Jones would arrive at a settlement. In February, 1909, Sir Robert Stout and Judge J. Palmer dealt with the matter, and found there were four subdivisions of the block, containing 53,000 acres, leased to Mr. Jones, and the lease contained a clause requiring the expenditure of £3OOO yearly in development work. It appeared, however, that Mr. Jones obtained from some of the lessors of the main block a deed purporting to release him from this expenditure. The commission decided there were serious doubts regarding the validity of the leases, and reported against Mr. Jones' proposal for disposing of the lands. Consequently a caveat was directed to be lodged against dealings with this property, and was not removed until the Registrar-General satisfied himself it was impossible in law to support the caveat. Then the Government was approached by the solicitors for the natives, and for Mr. Jones and Mr. Lewis, with a view to settlement. The Government thought the best way was to purchase the natives' interest, but a careful valuation resulted in a report that the land was only worth £30,000 at the most, and so the Government decided it could not purchase. The law did not permit the Government compulsorily taking natives' interests, but the latters' representatives said they were willing to sell their interests to the Governmeint for £22,500, whereas the Government oflicers computed those to be worth only £14,300, and the lessees' interests worth £20,700, and if it did purchase the Government would either have had admit the leases as good or enter into costly litigation and face the claim by the lessees for loss of occupation rights and right to work coal on the property for a period of nearly thirty years. 'The natives also threatened claims against the Land Transfer Assurance Fund. Mr G P. Skerrstt, K.C., on behalf of the natives, wrote asking authorisation of the acquisition by Mr. H. Lewis. He said Mr. Jones' interest had become vested in Mr. Lewis, and the latter's leasehold interests were mortgaged to the Flowers estate to secure the sum of £14,00 and interest and subsequent mortgages to Dalziell for £IOOO and McCarthy for £25,000. Thus the amounts owing to- ? .ft 0 ' 000 " The lettcr further stated that if the registration of Mr Jones' leases gave him an indefeasible' title, the natives would claim a We sum against the insurance fund for improper registration. Mr. Skerrett also stated that, after negotiations between himself and Mr. Dalziell, representing Lewis, he thought an arrangement could be made for the natives to sell their inw£hi £2s '°°"' t0 be P aid cash' within three months, making it conditional that Mr. Lewis should within three years subdivide and sell the land in areas of not less than that prescribed Mr st " A Native Act. Mr. Skerrett concluded by stating that ;Ir Lewis and Ins mortgagees agreed that the proceeds of the sale of the block be he d by them, subject to any claim or right thereto established by Mr, Jonei in n court of law or equity. Jam es Carroll further stated the Cabinet, on December 5, 1910 decide'! to agree to Mr. Skerrett's proposal, aim issued an Order-in-Council, being infhi enced by the fact that this was the speediest method of ensuring closer set tlement of the block. Everything don subsequently was purely departmental. Kegarding Mr. Jones' claims, the Gov eminent, as no doubt Mr. Jones' solicitors would admit, did all in its power ti obtain from him an interest in this land, but were finally driven to the conclusion that he had no claim. The position to-day was that the title of the block was vested in the chairman of the Maori Land Board. It was being surveyed and loaded, and must be sold in areas equi valent to and not exceeding 400 acres of first-class land, within three years. Til. Government had four courses open. The first was to do nothing in the matter the second was to purchase the land, tin third to purchase the interest of the natives and take compulsorily the interest of the lessee, and the fourth tc permit the natives and the lessees t( come to an arrangement' under which the claims against the assurance fund would disappear and the settlement o' the block be secured. The Government did not adopt the first course, being assured the fund would probably have had to pay a considerable sum to either the natives or the lessee. Second, because the valuation was £.18,000 less than the natives wanted. Third, because it would have involved costly litigation, and the Government would have had to meet a large sum for lessees' interests in eoa) rights. 'By adopting the fourth course The Government has obtained the immediate settlement of the block in small areas without risk of a penny to the State, and has saved the assurance fund from serious attack. Sir James Carroll concluded by expressing the opinion that the statement would probably give sufficient information to enable the Government's part in the matter to be understood, and that the Government would be glad to assist in every ivay by giving the transaction the fullest- publicity. Sir J. Carroll moved that the state-1 ment be referred to the Native Affairs' Committee to consider and report. I

Mr. Massey asked that the report be referred to committee other than the Native Affairs Committee. ' Such n committee was not a fair one to refer the matter to, as it was composed of thirteen members, ten of whom were Government supporters.

Sir J. Carroll said he wished to meet Mr. Massey in any way he could. The Native Affairs Committee was quite competent to deal with the matter.

Mr. Massey asked that a committee consisting of Messrs. Allen, Herries, Herdman, Okey, Jennings, Millar, McDonald, Ngata, Hogg and himself, deal with the matter.

Sir James failed to sop the necessity for a special committee. Mr. Massey said that not a single important statement which he had made in connection with the Mokau lands had been challenged in the statement Sir James Carroll had read. What the Crown should have done was to have set up a Compensation Court, as provided by the Native Lands Act, by which the Court could have fixed the amount paid to the owners of leasehold interests. He would like to know how many native owners were present wlien the meeting of assembled owners took place. The amount paid to Mr. Hermann Lewis when he sold the land to the ■ syndicate should come out of the Mokau Company, who did not intend selling the land in the ordinary way to intending settlers. They intended reserving the mineral rights. He was not satisfied with the tribunal to which it was proposed to refer the matter to. He moved as an amendment that the special committee named by him be set up to consider and report on the statement. Mr. Jennings pointed out that all the committee had to do was to consider the statement and report to the House. Mr. Luke supported the amendment. The country was entitled to all the information obtainable concerning the deal.

Mr. Fisher thought the matter should go before some tribunal outside the

House. He asked Sir James Carroll if he did not think the outcome of the enquiry would 'be the most important factor in the forthcoming election. The Hon. Mr. Ngata said the onlycharge really was that the interests of native owners had not Been safeguarded. The objects of the committee which went into the matter would be to elicit facts brought up under the charges made by Mr. Massey. The Native Affairs Committee would bring the facts out just as well as any other committee. Mr. Wright stated that the Government could have purchased the freehold of the whole 53,000 odd acres of Mokau land from the natives for £15,000, but they let the chance slip through their fingers. He supported the special committee. Mr. Lang said the Government was on its trial in the matter. They had allowed private people to get hold of the land instead of settling it themselves. ( After further discussion the motion was carried by 33 to 26. Sir James Carroll stated lie had given all information in possession of the Government in regard to the case. > A plain, pure exposition of facts had been given, and lie was sure it would prove satisfactory to the people of the country. The House adjourned at 5.30 p.m*.