THE MOKAU DEAL.

Wanganui Herald, Volume XXXXVI, Issue 13529, 10 November 1911, Page 4

THE MOKAU DEAL.

Mr Massey still retains amongst l)is • standing dishes the Mokau bogey, which he serves up in re-hashed forms in every '''political address that he delivers. It seems little use attempting'to refute his charges, for, notwithstanding'the findings of the ■Royal Commission, he persists in rcitcrat-, ing his allegations of corruption, as at Pukekohe oh Wednesday evening, when he remarked that “the Government might attempt to gloss over the Mokau dealings, but the fact remained that a gigantic swindle had been perpetrated.” Of course the inference still remains that the Government was a party to the so-called swindle. In this connection it will not be amiss to note what one of Mr Massey’s lieutenants had to say about the “deal.” Referring to the Commissioner’s report, the member for Tauranga, in the concluding speech of the debate, is thus reported by the •Christchurch Press, a strong Opposition journal:

Mr W. H. Herrics, in replying, contended that this report showed that there was very little party in the Native Affairs Committee. The best proof of this was that neither side in politics was satisfied. Ministerial organs had complained in leading articles- that the Government had not been sufficiently whitewashed, and Opposition papers had complained that the Government committee had not painted the Government black enough. The leader of the Opposition would have been correct if he had stated that the Order-in-Council extended the limitation provisions of the Native Land Act. Mr Massey had been m error as to the meeting of owners not, being properly representative, but his statement that the company had secured a monopoly of the coal-bearing areas in Taranaki would have been correct if he had said “coal-bearing area having a commercial value at present.” Mr Berries said he believed that, all things considered, the natives had got a fair price for their land. One of the mam issues at stake was whether the Government should have bought the Mokau lands. In his opinion there was a time when it would have paid the Dominion to have bought these properties. The Government had declared themselves afraid of litigation, but the company had bought, and nothing had happened. The vital issue at stake was whether the Ordcr-in-Council should have been issued. He was quite sure that if Ministers spoke their minds they would admit that they regretted that the Qrdc'r-in-Council had been issued. Mr Massey: They will regret it before the elections are over. ■

Mr Herries said it had unquestionably been a prodigious asset, and had enabled speculators to make large sums of money. Herman Lewis, for doing nothing, had got .£35,000, and Mason Chambers, also for doing nothing, had made £IO,OOO. The Prime Minister: They did not make it out of the Government.

Mr Herries: “But if the Order-in-Council had not been issued they could not have made it!” The whole effect of the Ordcr-in-Council had been to enrich a few fortunate individuals and impose an increased burden on settlers. He was quite ■ certain that the acceptance by Mr Bowler of tho position of trustee was improper, and should never be allowed to occur again. The report was adopted on tho voices. .The, above is a sufficient answer to Mr Massey’s wild charges against the Government. Tlie member for Tauranga is represented as saying that there was “very little party” in tho Committee that exonerated Ministers from all blame, tbatMr Massey 1 was “in error as to the meeting of owners not being properly representative,” that be was not correct in his statement concerning the coal-bearing area, and that “the natives bad got a fair price for their land.” The worst lie could say about the Government was that, in his opinion, “there was a dme when it would have paid the Dominion to have bought the properties,” and that the effect of the Order-in-Council bad been “to enrich a few fortunate individuals and to impose an increased burden on the settlers. It has- been explained a score of times that the fortunate individuals were the men already “in possession," and that the Order-in-Council, which did not cost the country, a single penny, was issued to avoid enormously costly litigation and to enable the owners, under the supervision of Mr Bowler, a- trusted civil servant, to settle the property quickly in terms of the Native Land Act. Enough eaid.