1.—17.

30

[j. JONES.

with and sold in areas under the Maori land laws, the fee-simple of the minerals to be awarded to me, and that after paying necessary cost of purchase of freehold surveys, &c, the balance shall be devoted (1) either in toto to Herrman Lewis or in payment to him of £5,000 [altered to £11,000], at the discretion of arbitrators to be nominated; (2) that £14,000, with interest, shall be paid to the executors of the said Wickham Flower. It must be noted that the moneys payable to Herrman Lewis, whether being the proceeds of the whole area less the two mentioned reserves, or the mentioned said £5,000 [altered to £11,000], are not in return for value received, services performed, or the expenditure of any moneys in connection with this property, but for the simple and only reason that the executors have gone through a form of sale of the property for no consideration to him —which sale he states to me is not enforceable—to answer some ends of their own; and it will be further noted with respect to the £14,000 that this has to be paid without my being allowed to enter contra accounts or claims. I have strongly impressed upon Mr. Treadwell my objections to such terms, but in reply he informs me that his information is that unless I accept them the Government will do nothing in the form of giving effect to the unanimously adopted report of the Legislative Council's Select Committee; therefore if I have to submit it will of necessity be under this compulsion. It must be remembered that, as set forth in my petition and fully proven before a Royal Commission in 1888, the Government and its officers were the primary cause of all my troubles. I further understand from Mr. Treadwell that the present Government does not intend to protect the property from further dealings as recommended in the report. Will you please reply as to whether the foregoing is a correct version, or am I under any misapprehension? It is quite true, as lias been argued, that according to the decision of the Appeal Court on the 20th July last I have no rights, but I do not accept that view; neither, I believe, does the Parliament of this country. I hold that I have equitable rights that may be made valid.—Yours faithfully, Joshua Jones." That is dated the 24th October, 1908. Here is the reply, dated the 29th October, 1908: " Panama Street, Wellington, 29th October, 1908. — Me Mokau land petition.—Dear Sir, —With reference to your letter of the 24th instant addressed to us, we cannot say that it quite correctly states what the position is. It would be better for us, therefore, to detail the facts in so far as they appear to be material, no that you can understand the present position. As you say, the Select Committee reported, and the report was adopted by the Legislative Council, we believe, without discussion or dissent. The writer several times saw the Attorney-General with reference to the matter, and a perfectly plain intimation was given to him by Dr. Findlay that the Government would not either appoint a Commission to deal with or investigate the allegations m the petition. The Government, of course, cannot prevent dealing with the land, but we had an intimation from Dr. Findlay before the end of the session that no legislation would be introduced. M.r. Dalziell is acting for Mr. Herrman Lewis, and an agreement has been arrived at provisionally between the writer and him which your statement does not tally with. This agreement, of course, haw not yet been completely approved by you, though we have understood from you from time to time that you will acquiesce in its terms. In order that you may quite appreciate what the position is we enclose a copy of the draft (sec note) ■which we have to-day sent to Messrs. Findlay, Dalziell, and Co. You will see that in some respects it does not accord with what you state in your letter. We cannot, of course, say that it has been conveyed to us either by Dr. Findlay or Air. Dalziell that these terms will be approved by the Crown, nor apparently is it necessary that they should. The matter is more one of private arrangement between you and the other parties in dispute than for the Crown, but the AttorneyGeneral certainly told the writer that he had submitted a memorandum prepared some little time ago of suggested terms of settlement which are little different from those embodied in the draft to the Hon. Mr. Carroll, and that Mr. Carroll thought it was a fair arrangement in so far as the Natives were concerned. We have, of course, stated to you our opinion as to what the effect of not coming to some settlement is, but, of course, that is a matter of deduction from the circumstances, and not a matter of what has been put to us either by Dr. Findlay or by Mr. •Dalziell. There is one other matter in your letter which is not correctly stated—that is, that Messrs. Travers, Campbell, and Peacock, solicitors for the executors for the late Wickham Flower, are acting with Messrs. Findlay, Dalziell, and Co. in common interests. We cannot see that that is the position. The interests of Mr. Lewis and the executors of the late Mr. Flower, while they are in both cases antagonistic to yours, may conflict, and undoubtedly in some respects they do conflict. We trust this letter is sufficient for your present purposes. If you require any further information kindly let us hear from you. —Yours truly, Stafford and Treadwell. — Joshua Jones, Esq. (Note. —The £5,000 in the draft agreement was increased to £11,000. This variation is made by Jones.)" Now, the importance of that letter of Mr. Treadwell to Jones is this : Dr. Findlay point-blank denies that he ever refused the inquiry or offered any terms whatever. Mr. Treadwell says very clearly that he had several interviews with Dr. Findlay, who told him that there should be no inquiry. One or the other is making a mistake. I will put it that way, gentlemen ; but there it is. It is at the time, remember, the month of October when the Committee made their report, and Jones in his letter says in case of future reference it is as well to commit to paper the circumstances attending such proposed agreement, warning Mr. Treadwell to be careful. That is denied before the A to L Committee of 1910 by Dr. Findlay. Mr. Treadwell himself went before that Committee, and I must ask you to remember that the witnesses were not sworn. Mr. Treadwell goes before that Committee and repudiates almost every word of what he had said. 13. lion. Mr. He was your lawyer?— Yes, but I have never gone near him since. 14. Bon. M.r. Have you got the original of that letter?— Yes, I have it here [Exhibit V.] 15. Hon. Mr. Ansley .] Can you give us the terms of the compromise alluded to in these letters—the terms you were offered? —The terms are these: Herrman Lewis was to be the owner of the property. It was to be handed over to a Board to deal with.