I.—lα.

6

(5.) That, in order to settle the long-standing dispute in connection with the Mokau-Mohaka-tino Block, the Government be recommended to assist in bringing about an amicable understanding between the parties concerned, with a view of settling the land. (6.) That, in view of the fact that the petitioner believed his original lease from the Natives to be legally sound, and taking into consideration the treatment meted out to him by solicitors in England, whereby he lost his legal interest in the estate, the Committee recommends that in any such mutual understanding the petitioner's claims to equitable consideration should be clearly defined. The Committee then adjourned.

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. Friday, 9th September, 1910. (No. 1.) The Chairman: Members will remember that Mr. Jones, through Mr. Okey, requested me to secure the report on the Mokau Coalfield produced before the Select Committee of the Legislative Council in 1908. The document is here. Mr. Jones: This is not the document I asked for. There is another document. The Chairman: Whose fault is that ? Is not that the one you asked for 'I Mr. Jones: This is not the document I saw before the Committee. I can see that before 1 read it. The Chairman: But that is the report on the Mokau Coalfield. Mr. Jones: There were two, a good one and a bad one. The Chairman: Is that the good one? Mr. Jones: I think not, but I have not read it through. The Chairman: We will give you every opportunity to look it through before you make a statement. That is the document produced —at least, so the solicitors state. I naturally assume, although they have not said so, that that is the one. Mr. Jones: This document was not placed before the Committee in 1908. It was not of that size. I told my solicitor, Treadwell, to read it while we were there, and he read it through. This is a report absolutely condemning the property, in connection with which I have the sworn evidence of Wales. That is not the report Hermann Lewis pulled out of his pocket before the Committee, in the presence of Travers and Campbell. The Chairman: The Committee could only ask what you requested. You did not state that there were two reports. Mr. Jones: I naturally thought the one read there would be produced. Lewis read part of the report to me, and I got my solicitor to read it right through. The Chairman: Do I understand you to say that that is not the report read before the Committee of the Legislative Council in 1908? Mr. Jones: They did not read it out; they had it in their hands. It was not read. It was laid on the table, and my counsel read it through. The Chairman: Is that the report you want ? Mr. Jones: No. There were two reports. That is not the one. The Chairman: Then it is of no use to us? Mr. Jones: Ido not think it is. But I ask you to retain it, and not give it out. The Chairman: That is a matter for the Committee. If you say that is not the report, I suggest that I should communicate again with the solicitors. Can we get along with the inquiry without the report you want? Mr. Jones: Yes. The Chairman: Is there any use asking for the other report? You say it is most important? Mr. Jones: Absolutely. The Chairman: Do you propose to quote the contents of that report? Mr. Jones: I shall put it in. The Chairman: If we take your evidence to-day, and get the report for another meeting, it will not be satisfactory to go over the whole thing again, comparing your evidence with the report. Mr. Okey: It is possible there were two reports placed before the Council Committee. I have no doubt that this one came before the Committee as well as the other one. Mr. Jones: I have the sworn evidence of Wales, contained in the report I hold in my hand. The Chairman: You suggest that Wales gave two reports? Mr. Jones: That is so. (At this stage the Chairman withdrew, accompanied by a member of the Committee, to telephone to the firm of solicitors concerned, and on returning reported that Messrs. Travers and Peacock said that only one report was produced before the Committee in 1908, and that it was the one supplied. They had had nothing else, and were prepared to send their representative to testify to that effect. The mark "R" on the back of the document, the Chairman was quoted in support of the fact that it had been an exhibit before the Committee. " I said," the Chairman continued, " ' Admitting.that, was not another document produced? ' but they replied, ' Not to our knowledge. If there was, we know nothing of it.' ")