G.—2

150

considerations: (1.) It seemed to me quite probable that, if necessary, Parliament would legalise the agreement of 1874 between Major Kemp and the late Sir Donald McLean. (2.) There might be some reasonable objection to the first allotment of 1,200 acres, on the ground that the proposed section was separate from the 100 acres allotted to Ngatiraukawa by the Native Land Court of 1873. (3.) Advantage might be taken of this objection to induce Parliament to throw the whole " Horowhenua Block " back into the Native Land Court as a " rehearing " of the judgment of 1873. (4.) Such a proceeding would put " Muaupoko" to great expense, and, while it might not ultimately be to the advantage of Ngatiraukawa, could not well be otherwise on the whole than disadvantageous to Muaupoko. (5.) Under these circumstances, it seemed to me prudent to allot an alternative 1,200 acres adjacent to the existing 100 acres of Ngatiraukawa. (6.) To do so would, I thought, effectually close the door against any appeal by Ngatiraukawa to Parliament or to any other authority. These considerations were fully submitted by me to Muaupoko, and were approved by them. Accordingly the alternative allotment, now Section 9, was proposed and agreed to. It was clearly and perfectly understood that only one of the allotments was to be transferred to Ngatiraukawa, and that the other would be in the meantime held by Major Kemp for whomsoever might hereafter be found to be best entitled to it. This, it was hoped, would be determined before the final adjournment of the Native Land Court then sitting. But the Ngatiraukawa then present in Palmerston North obstinately refused to make choice of either section while the Native Land Court was still there, and there was therefore no alternative but to leave both sections, 14 and 9, in the name of Major Kemp. I affirm that it is not possible for anything to be more clearly understood than that only one of these sections were to be transferred to Ngatiraukawa by Major Kemp, and that then the other would be returned to be dealt with by the Muaupoko Tribe. If it has been finally settled that Ngatiraukawa are to have Section 9 in fulfilment of the agreement of 1874, it is certain that, so far as "justice" is concerned, Section 14 must be returned to Muaupoko, and cannot be otherwise dealt with by Major Kemp, nor by any other person. I affirm that all I have here set down is true, and was all fully stated in the Native Land Court of 1886, and was perfectly well known and understood by Major Kemp and by all Muaupoko, and it is quite incredible to me that it was not also well known to Sir Walter Buller. But if the Ngatiraukawa have finally elected to take Section 9 in satisfaction of their claim to Horowhenua, and if the Muaupoko Tribe have consented to the transfer of Section 14 by Major Kemp to Sir Walter Buller, I do not see how any one can complain of the latter transaction. Otherwise, I do not see how the transfer of Section 14 to Sir Walter Buller can be regarded otherwise than as a breach of trust, alike contrary to common-sense and to " justice," whatever the lawyers may say about it. Re Sale of Levin Special Settlement to the Government by Warena Hunia. I do not consider myself competent to express an opinion on the technically legal aspect of the question, but of the moral and equitable right of Warena Hunia to sell the land I have no doubt whatever. If he had sold any part of the land in the actual occupation of any member of the Muaupoko Tribe I should say that, though he would still be, in my opinion, within his own hereditary right, and the right voluntarily conferred upon him by the tribe in 1886, yet he would, as a Maori chief, have done wrong. But I do not understand that ho has done so, and his right to sell any unoccupied parts of the land allotted to him by the Native Land Court of 1890 is, in my opinion, indisputable from any moral or equitable point of view, whatever lawyers may say to the contrary. Under no conceivable circumstances (except party politics, which can account for anything, however nasty) can the Lovin Special Settlement or the £2,000 of the Government be in any real danger. Relying on my own personal knowledge, and on public records as from 1840 to 1890, and regarding, as I do, the evidence of Major Kemp and the Muaupoko people in the Native Laud Court of 1890 as absolutely worthless in the light of the evidence given by the same persons in the previous Native Land Court of 1873, all the lawyers in Christendom could not persuade me that Warena Hunia had not a perfect right to sell or otherwise dispose at his pleasure of the land he is said to have sold to the Government. A. McDonald.

TABLES A AND B, REFERRED TO IN SIR WALTER BULLER'S MEMORANDUM AT END OF FINAL ADDRESS. (See Page 136.) Table A. Showing the contradictions given by Nicholson (the only descendant of Te Whatanui called by the counter-claimants) to McDonald's present story : — N.B. —It is admittedly the case that, if Kemp proves that No. 9 was on the Ist December definitely decided on by the registered owners of Horowhenua as the subdivision for the descendants of Te Whatanui, the counterclaimants' case must fail; as they cannot succeed unless they prove that on the 3rd December No. 14 was allotted in trust as an alternative offer to those descendants (and refused by them after the Court of 1886). It is on the question, what occurred on and before the Ist December, that Nicholson flatly contradicts McDonald ; and it should be observed that Nicholson's evidence is against the side that called him, and moreover highly authoritative on the question what occurred as to No. 9 in 1886. Summarising these contradictions: Whereas McDonald denies that the descendants of Te Whatanui present in Palmerston accepted, much less asked for, No. 9 at the partition of 1886, Nicholson tells how, for at least a week prior to the award of No. 9 on the Ist December, they had been urging Kemp to give them No. 9 (instead of Ohau), as being the locality named in Kemp's promise to McLean, and near their kaingas; that Lewis had also been interceding to the same effect; and that, when Kemp acceded to their request, the definite choice of No. 9 was announced in Court by Kemp and Lewis (as Judge Wilson also relates) in the hearing of Nicholson and other descendants of Te Whatanui. It may be remarked that Nicholson states the most specific facts—McDonald's ignorance of which, considering he was in communication with Nicholson, is surprising. (1.) Nicholson says (Horowhenua Commission, pages 162 and 163, answers 134 and 135,) that he objected to Ohau and wanted Raumatangi, because, to use his own words, "my elders wanted it where their kaingas were," and so much in earnest were they to get Raumatangi that, he proceeds to tell, he asked Kemp to meet the descendants of Te Whatanui present in Palmerston at the Royal Hotel (Horowhenua Commission evidence, page 162, answers 114 to 130); and that when the telegraphic copy of the agreement arrived, showing that the land was to be near Lake Horowhenua, Kemp came round and let them have No. 9, and that they heard Kemp announce in Court that this was settled. (Nicholson's evidence in the present case is even more specific, vide infra (2). (1.) McDonald says (Judge Butler's notes, p. 325): "I am not aware of any negotiations between Ngatiraukawa and Kemp. I don't believe there were any." And (ibid., page 330): "My general answer is that up to the present time I did not know that the descendants of Te Whatanui had selected No. 9." (2.) Nicholson's story in the present case is as follows (page 368, Judge Butler's notes): ". . . But when we reached Palmerston I heard that it was proposed to give it us at Ohau. It was on that account that I called a meeting of the descendants of Te Whatanui, and asked Kemp to attend it. . . . It was then I ascertained