141

G.—l

Mr. Martin Chapman examined. 1951. Mr. Bees.] You are a barrister and solicitor practising in Wellington?—l am. 1952. How long have you been in practice in Wellington ?—Since 1875. 1953. In the practice of your profession during that time have you had brought under your notice the law in relation to the alienation of Native lands ? —I have never been in direct contact to any extent Avith the Natives themselves, and I have never been inside the Native Land Court; but I think I may say that I have had a great deal of practice in respect of the Native-land law. 1954. In the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal?—Yes, mostly in the Court of Appeal. Conveyancing also, of course. 1955. Are you aware of the existence of cases in Avhich, through the complex nature of the NatiA Te-land IaAV, and the interpretation of that law by the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal, there are titles imperilled by reason of formal technicalities and omissions ?—I should think there are many. 1956. Are you aware also that there are other cases in respect of which there are disputes— contentious matter arising from questions of title betAveen Natives and Europeans?—l should say so, undoubtedly, just as there are among Europeans. You cannot have conveyancing without having questions of law arising. 1957. Noav, as regards these tAvo classes of cases which you have stated that you knoAV to exist—that is, defective titles arising from mere matters of non-feasance—simple omissions—and cases where serious disputes may arise—can you suggest any difference of plan for the settlement of these tAvo classes of cases? —I should not like to make any suggestion. I have thought of a great many things from time to time, but I have never gone into the matter AA'ith the studied application that I would give to it if I were asked, for instance, to frame a Bill. 1958. Speaking generally in relation to titles in respect of which there were mere matters of omission, no question as to the merits or any contentious matter Avhatever, but Avhich the peculiarities of various statutes comprehended in the present law impeached or invalidated, do you think a law should bo passed to validate such titles?—All, without exception, do you mean ? 1959. No ; mere omissions : all technical omissions, but not cases AA'hich involve questions as to the merits, or in which contentious matter has arisen?—There is always a difficulty in saying what amounts to an error involving merits and AA'hat does not, because every technicality imposed by the Legislature is presumed to meet some merits. Every technicality is supposed to be essential, and, though it may not appear so in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, yet in the hundredth case, the merest technicality may prevent a fraud. 1960. Then, do you think it would be wise to submit even cases of technicality to the judgment of some tribunal to be appointed?—l should prefer that to a SAveeping enactment curing all omissions. 1961. Mr. Carroll.] It Avould be the safest course? —Yes; that no omitted compliance with a technicality should be condoned without the prior recommendation of some competent and unbiassed person. 1962. Mr. Bees.] As regards those cases where there is contentious matter betAveen Natives and Europeans in relation to titles, having regard to the complexity of the Native-land laAvs, do you think it Avould be advisable that a special tribunal should be created to deal finally AA'ith those cases ?—That is a subject I have never given much thought to. My oavii idea has hitherto been that the Native Land Court, if differently constituted from what it is uoav, ought to be able to deal AA'ith such cases; and if the power is to be given to any tribunal I should think that a differentlyconstituted Native Land Court ought to be that tribunal. By " differently-constituted" I mean the Court should consist of laAvyers, or persons AA'ith a technical education, and independent of the Government for the time being. 1963. I may tell you that Mr. F. H. D. Bell, in the course of his examination this morning, stated his opinion that the personnel of such tribunal should be appointed by statute, and not by the Government ?—That is my meaning, when I say they should be independent of the Government for the time being. I may say that I did not know that that was Mr. Bell's expression of opinion. 1964. He stated it distinctly this morning. Their names should bo included in the statute, and should not be filled in by the Government during the recess? —I agree with that. 1965. Of course your object would be to secure a Court absolutely independent of any political influence ?—Yes. I do not wish for an instant to suggest that anything of this kind has ever been done, but I see nothing in the present constitution of the Court to prevent the Government from virtually taking aAvay a particular case from the Judge who is hearing it, and setting another Judge to hear it, and, if necessary, it could remove that Judge. Supposing a Government was in power that desired to interfere with the Native Land Court in this way, the means are ready to its hand. I do not imagine it ever has been done or that it ever will be in the future, but it is possible, and that A'ery possibility might, particularly in cases where the Government is interested, influence the mind of the Judge, and particularly an untrained Judge. 1966. Respecting those cases where disputes exist between Maoris and Europeans, whether cases of fraud, actual or constructive, or illegality, or any other question that might arise, do you think such a tribunal should have power finally to decide all such questions ? —I have not thought of that, but lam inclined to think it would be as well that it should; subject, however, to this : that it should not go against the IaAV of the land except such portions of that law as were directly specified. The particular points on which such a tribunal could ignore the IaAV should be carefully specified in the statute; otherwise we might find such a tribunal overriding the common law and the statute law applicable generally to Her Majesty's subjects; and I consider that Avould be a great misfortune. But, subject to that, I think, Avith an appeal against proceedings in that way, a plan could be deA'ised. 1967. That would be a species of prohibition ? —Well, prohibition would do ; but, subject to that, I think the decision should be final,