A "MARE'S NEST."

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIV, Issue 137, 1 December 1911, Page 4

A "MARE'S NEST."

THE MOKAU AFFAIR. j ME. OICEY'S ALLEGATIONS. PREMIER GIVES THEM THE LIE DIRECT. In his address at Fitzroy on Tuesday night Mr. Okey stated that included in the Mokau block were 5021 acres of Crown land, awarded to the Crown by the Native Land Court in satisfaction of a survey lien amounting to £ 1469. This land, he claimed, should/ have been offered for public competition, when it would have realised fully 30s per acre, or £7531, but the Government sold it to the company for £1469, and, on November 20th, the liens on the title, were cancelled, and the land became the company's freehold under the Land Transfer title.

On Wednesday the Daily News telegraphed the Premier for an explanation of the statement, which, on the face of it, looked quite improbable and untenable, and last night the Premier, who on account of his leaving Wellington by the boat on Wednesday night did not get the wire till yesterday, telegraphed from Oamaru as follows:

"In reply to your telegram re Mr. Okey's statement regarding Mokau, I gave particulars to the Press Association last night in Wellington, but it has not been telegraphed. The whole statement is entirely without foundation. In fact, upon seeing it, I had the whole matter investigated, and it is as follows:—

"The facts are very simple, and, as they have already been published in official documents, there is no excuse for Mr. Okey's misrepresenting the circumstances of the case. As a member of the late House he must have seen the report of the Parliamentary Committee on the Motau-Mohakatino case, and consequently was perfectly well aware that his version of the matter is, to put it mildly, incorrect. The following explanation will serve to show the public cvnce more the true circumstances.

"The question was inquired' into by the Parliamentary Committee on Wednesday, September 20, 1911, and Mr. William C. Kensington, 1.5.0., Under-SecietaTy of Lands, in his evidence on that day (see page 128 of Parliamentary paper I—31 —3 a) stated that in satisfaction of the Orown's sumy liens the Crown was awarded by the Native Land Court about 51-53 acres in different subdivisions of the block. That award was made on the supposition th{it the fee simple for the block was held by the Maoris, and that the Court could apportion an area for Crown liens. As a matter of fact there existed at that time Mr. Jones' leases and other subleases, and heavy mortgages over the block. The consequence was that the Department could not cut out those areas that had been awarded to the Crown. It would therefore seem that the order of the Court had been made under a misapprehension. Therefore when a syndicate acquired the block the UnderSecretary pointed out to their solicitor that the Crown must have security for its survey costs, and Messrs. findlay, Dalziell and Co. deposited the full amount of the survey costs, viz., £1469, on the 10th August last, and that amount was paid to the deposit account of the Receiver-General, pending final determination in the matter. It will therefore be seen

(1) That no land had been sold by the Crown as alleged. What had hap pened was that the survey costs had been repaid by the native owners to the Crown, as has frequently been done in other cases where the natives wished to sell their land which is encumbered with the Crown survey liens. (2) The order of the Native Land Court was never carried out, as it was deemed ultra vires under the cir- , cumstances narrated. Such an order can only have effect when the land over which it is to .be registered is unencumbered. In this case the land was subject to leases, subleases and mortgages, all of which had priority over the Crown liens. (3) The Native Land Court recon- ' sidered the matter at Te Kuiti on 18th October, 1911, when Judge Holland cancelled the order in question under section 121 of the Native Land Act, 1909. The decision is recorded in Otorohanga minute book, number 53, on page 340. (4) The effect of this cancellation of order was that the area of land in the block to be awarded in satisfaction of the survey liens was thereupon freed from the Crown's encumbrance and diverted to the native owners who could then deal with it as they had power. (•5) The Crown never possessed any title to the land in question, so could not sell it. All the Crown had was a charge over the area in respect of unsatisfied survey liens. When these liens were paid off the Crown's claims disappeared.. "The alleged sale of the land by the Crown without competition is therefore imaginary. The native owners owed the Crown money for the survey of the block and when they discharged this debt the Crown had no further claims on the land or against the natives.—J. G. WARD."