P. BIKIHANA. j

99

I.—3a.

94. In what way were they used? Did the proxy state definitely that the man giving the proxy was opposed to the sale? — I could not say. They were written in English. 95. In what way were they used? We have evidence from you that they were intended to be used against the sale. Were they used for the sale or againsi the sale?— That was so. When we reached there, because of the way the matter was pul before us by Tuiti and Mr. Hardy, we thought the best course for us to take would be to agree to the sale : we allowed ourselves to be persuaded, and did so. 96. Persuaded by whom?—Tuiti Macdonald and Mr. Hardy. 97. Then, are we to understand that Tuiti Macdonald and Mr. Hardy were acting in' the interests of the people who desired to purchase the blocks? The Chairman: I do not think that is a question that should be submitted. It is not a question that can be allowed. 98. Mr. Massey.] I will put it in iliis waj : in whose interests do you consider that Tuiti Macdonald and Mr. Hardy were acting?— They, together with us, were opposing the sale. 99. Did they advise the Natives to sell?— Yes, thai was (he position. We all went to Te Kuiti with the intention of opposing 'lie sale. On our arrival there matters were explained to us by Tuiti and Mr. Hardy, to the effect that the conditions were in their opinion such that the only course for us to take was id agree to (lie sale : and we then agreed. 100. Was there any meeting held at Te Kuiti to consider the proposals, apart from the meeting of assembled owners?—l have no knowledge. 101. Were you present at the meeting of assembled owners at Te Kuiti? —I do not quite understand the question. There were the occasions when we met before the Board. Or are you asking about private consultations amongst ourselves? 102. There was evidence to s'k.w thai in addition to the meeting of assembled owners there was at least one other meeting, when the Natives gave their consent to the sale. That is really the meeting which I want to know whether the witness was present at?— Yes, but there was a meeting held at Mahoenui. If that is the one you are referring to, I was not present at it. 103. I am speaking of meetings at Te Kuiti. Can you tell us how many meetings were held at Te Kuiti? —I only know of one meeting that we held, apart from the Board meetings. 104. Were the proceedings in English or Maori? —In Maori. We were all Maoris. 105. You thoroughly understood what was being done?— Yes. 106. Now, with regard to the meeting at which Mr. Holland presided : were you present at that? —Yes, I continually attended. There was only one Board meeting that I did not attend. 107. At that meeting were the proceedings in English or Maori? —In both English and Maori. 108. Did you understand what was being said and done? —No; that is to say, I did not understand all that was being said. 109. Were you requested to come here by any other owners than your wife?— Yes, I have said so already, and explained that they sent a document to the Chairman. % 110. Did they ask you to express their satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the sale?— They objected to the sale, because they discovered that matters are in the position in which they now lie. 111. Did they ask you to come here and say so to the Committee? —Yes, if I had the opportunity granted me to do so. 112. The Chairman.] Did they all accept their share of the money, all these people that you came to object for? —No, none of those who signed that wire have accepted payment. 113. Are they Te Whiti-ites? —I cannot say. The only one'l am certain about is Te Oro. 114. Hon. Sir J. Carroll.] Is it, not a fact that the owners of Mokau were divided into two parties? —I cannot answer that question. It may be so. 115. Let me put it in this way: was there not a selling party and an anti-selling party? —Yes. 116. Was there any bad feeling between those two sections?— Yes. That was so, because some of them adopted Andrew Pepene's suggestion for sale, and others opposed it. 117. Hon. Mr. Ngata.] Were you present at the meeting at Te Kuiti on the oth April, when they discussed the question of costs?— Yes. 118. Did you put in an account for £68?— Yes. 119. You knew that it was proposed to make a deduction from the £25,000 cash paid for the land?— May I explain what the position was in regard to that matter? Tuiti had said that the company was to pay all costs and expenses. 120. But was "there not a resolution passed that each party should pay its own costs, which should come out of this £25,000? —Yes, that was passed by a majority of votes at our meeting. 121. You put in this account for £68, which you agreed to reduce to £60?— That is it. 122. It was further reduced by the amount of £16 55., which you had received from Mr. Hardy? —Yes. 123. Leaving a balance of £43-odd still due to you? —Yes. 124. Have you been paid this? —No, not yet. Frederick George Dalziell sworn and examined. (No. 16.) 1. The Chairman.'] What are you, Mr. Dalziell?—A solicitor, practising in Wellington. 2. You know the subject-matter of this inquiry? —Yes. 3. Is it in connection with the paper before this Committee that you wish to give evidence? —Yes. 4. Will you make a statement? —Yes, I should like to do that. My statement will cover the whole transaction, from the time I became associated with the Mokau Block up to the time of the sale by the Natives.