1.—17.

46

[j. JONES.

partner. The Committee's report on the matter was then before Cabinet. I was asked to see Mr. Treadwell and Mr. Dalziell. I saw both these lawyers. 1 should like to have an opportunity of cross-examining these lawyers as to what took place at the interview, because this interview has been used to reflect upon me seriously and professionally. I reminded them that the matter was before Cabinet. 1 told them that I would not advise the Cabinet to set up a Royal Commission, and that I did not think they would do it. I repeat that now. i claim that I was as free to arrive at a conclusion as any member of the Cabinet." Is that correct? He goes on, " I told these men to their faces that in my opinion there was no case in which such a Commission has been set up." That is what Truth copied from. I invite your attention to the letter I wrote to Mr. Treadwell on the 24th October, 1908, and his reply of the 29th October, in which he says, " 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 in the petition " (see exhibits). Here Dr. Findlay says he supported the setting-up of a Royal Commission. Mr. Treadwell up to the time of the A to J- Committee's report was for me, but he was brought there by Dr. Findlay as a witness. At that Committee Dr. Findlay examined Mr. Treadwell (see evidence taken before the Ato L Committee, pages 23, 24, and 25). Now, gentlemen, his evidence is as deliberately untrue as anything could be. He said he could not fall out with Dr. Findlay. The fact is that for many years Mr. Treadwell has been connected with two Departments of the Government —the Government Insurance Department and the Public Trust Office —and for four or five years Dr. Findlay was head of the Departments. Here is another thing : Mr. Treadwell was asked, " What money has been paid to you bj T Jones? " and he said, " I have had no money at all." "1 suppose money had to be paid in connection with the Supreme Court?" "Just a pound here and a pound there. 1 have no doubt that Mr. Jones, if he gets a satisfactory settlement, will settle up with me. I believe he has a good equitable and moral claim that ought to be settled." Well, when I came from London there was a good deal to be done out here, and Mr. Treadwell cabled to my London solicitors, "Will you guarantee our costs?" The answer was " Yes." When 1 came out Mr. Treadwell asked me about the costs, and I said, " Have you not been paid them? " and he said " No." I then said, " Send your account Home " ; and he got the money out. Mr. Bell: It seems to me, as far as I can arrive at it, that whether the Government was right or wrong in refusing the Royal Commission does not affect your position. If you were entitled to an inquiry you are entitled to it. It cannot do you any good or any harm going into the matter. Hon. the. Chairman: I suggested to Mr. Jones privately that lie .should try and wind up his case as soon as possible, because members have the right to question him, and will extract from him any deficiencies in his original statement. By that means we are likely to get further ahead than we are doing by his present method. But I did not like to check him. Witness: I am thankful to you, gentlemen, and I am sure you are all very patient with me. But it is set out in this letter of Paines and Co. to Truth that Mr. Jones's own solicitor refused to act for him. I did not ask him to act for me in that Committee. 1 felt that he would not quarrel with his bread and butter. Dr. Findlay said, "Look at what his solicitor, Mr. Treadwell, says." I have shown that Mr. Treadwell did get his money. About eighteen months ago he said something to me about costs, and I said, "Here's an 1.0. U. for £1,000." He said, "I thank you very much; that is very liberal of you." Another year passed away, and I asked him what ha was going to do. He said, " What extra costs will you give me if I settle the matter this time? " and I said, " I will give you another £1,000 if you will settle it." Why does he as a barrister not put these things out? 11. Mr. Bell.] Have you paid the 1.0.U.s? —No, I have not. I have all along contended with regard to Herrman Lewis that he was a dummy in the case. He paid nothing on the purchase of the property, and gave the mortgage back the same day. Mr. Dalziell, on page 100 of the Mokau-Mohakatino Block evidence, 1911, says, " Mr. Lewis was not in a position to finance the purchase of the leases from the trustees unless he could get such a title as he could borrow upon. I mean that, in view of the doubt thrown upon his title, he was not in a position to finance the purchase, because he had not sufficient funds with which to finance the purchase independently of the value of the leasehold." That shows that they transferred the property to a penniless man —there is no question about it. There was an alleged sale by Herrman Lewis, but the purchasers dealt direct with the executors; they would not pay the money out through their solicitors, Messrs. Moorhouse and Hadfield, until Herrman Lewis's name was on the register, and he did not handle the monej'. He was a dummy, and they put his name on the register to enable the Hawke's Bay people to go into it. Here is what Mr. Campbell, of Messrs. Travers and Campbell, says : " The property has passed to Mr. Lewis, who has given us a mortgage for £14,000 over the property, and, in addition, we have certain other security. So far as there being any collusion between Mr. Lewis and Flower's executors, I give that a most unqualified denial. Mr. Lewis is the absolute owner of this property and we are simply the mortgagees, and when we get our £14,000 we shall have nothing more to do with it." " Hon Mr. Luke : Was there any cash deposited?" "There was a certain amount deposited with another firm of solicitors." 12. Hon. the Chairman.] What are you quoting from?— The report of the Committee of 1908. Further on in the report the Chairman asks Mr. Lewis, " Have you any statement to make? " "Mr. Lewis: I have only this to say, Mr. Chairman, that prior to November, 1907, I knew nothing whatever about this Mokau property. Mr. Orr happened to have some business in our office and mentioned to me something about this property, and I went into the matter. As far as collusion goes it is untrue." Further on the Chairman says, "Well, Mr. Lewis, tell