MOKAU LANDS COMMISSION

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIV, Issue 54, 25 August 1911, Page 2

MOKAU LANDS COMMISSION

YESTERDAY'S BUSINESS. By Telegraph—Press Association. Wellington, Thursday. The Mokau inquiry was continued this morning by the Native Affairs Committee.

Mr. Dalziell, of the firm of Findlay, Dalzwll and Co., was permitted to remain in the room and ask questions of witnesses in connection with any allegations made against the Arm. Mr. F. H. D. Bell, called by Mr. Massey, stated that he represented legally the majority of the Native owners of the block. At the first meeting of assembled Native owners of the block the 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 for £BO,OOO against the Natives under the land transfer assurance fund, if the claim was valid it still existed, the purchase 'by Mr. Lewis had not extinguished it. The Natives were induced to sell the land, 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 Land 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 land transfer assurance fund. Sir James Carroll objected to 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 in opinion. He did not suggest that the board did not believe the transaction was in the interests I of the Natives.

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

Mi-. Bel] said he wished to make it distinctly understood that he had never offered an opinion whether the Government had or had not acted rightly in the matter.

Mr. Mander asked witness if the Government would have experienced more difficulties in Hie purchase of the block than Mr. Lewis had. Witness answered in the affirmative, as Mr. Lewis had 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 (Mr. fialziell's) firm had done gross injustice to the Natives in the matter of the purchase of the propertv for £35,000. The committee adjourned till Wednesday next.