1.—17.

88

[j. G. WARD.

53. The issue of the Order in Council was decided upon before you went Home?—l tried to have it verified this morning, and I am not sure of it; but, in any case, whatever my colleagues decided upon I was, with them, responsible for. 54. After it was decided to issue the Order in Council the question of Mr. Jones's claims was still discussed between Mr. Jones and his solicitors and Mr. Okey, who interested himself in Mr. Jones's behalf?— That may be, but 1 do not know that it was so. But my answer is that neither the Government as a whole nor any member of it regarded Mr. Jones as having at any time any claim against New Zealand. We always believed that his grievance was against the mortgagees, and they were all dealing as private individuals. We never have taken the position that the country was responsible to Mr. Jones for anything as a matter of State rights or State responsibility. 55. Mr. Jones claims that the issue of the Order in Council was disastrous to him, because it practically snuffed him out altogether—it allowed Herrman Lewis, who had the leaseholds, to acquire the freeholds; and what 1 want to find out is what reason the Government had for hastening the issue of the Order in Council?—l do not know that it was hastened. I know the Natives wanted to sell the land, and if we had bought it at the price they wanted we would have inflicted a heavy loss on the people of the country. Whatever claims Jones had could not be affected, Order in Council or no Order in Council. If lie had anything by right then he has it now. 56. In 1907 legislation was passed which took aAvay the sole pre-emptive rights Mr. Jones had over some 2,0Q0 acres?—l cannot recollect that, but if so it must be on record. 57. Mr. Jones alleges that he saw you about it and you promised to make it right nest session? —I have already replied to Mr. Jones that I do not remember that. I do not recollect making any promise of that kind. Tf T had made siich a promise 1 would have tried to put it into effect. 58. Mr. 8e21.~\ You said that at the time the Order in Council was issued it was done in order to empower the Natives to sell, and you said, "I do not know anything about Herrman Lewis"? —I do not know anything personally of him of any sort or kind. He has never seen me about anything connected with the Mokau Estate at any time. Whatever the Order in Council was for it is stated in it and must be on record. 59. lint, as a matter of fact, it was known when the Order in Council was issued that Herrman Lewis was to be the purchaser? — I did not know that that was so personally. 60. 1 think it was suggested, as one of the reasons why the Order in Council was in the public interest, that the purchaser was giving an undertaking to cut the land up?— Well, that must be on record if it is so. 61. I am only speaking from memory?—l am not going to answer anything as to details in an offhand way from memory. I cannot recollect the details of the Order in Council, and what it was for must be on record. 62. Mr. Jones.] I put the question to you —in fact, I asserted —that you could have bought the land at .£15,000, and yet you did not take it, and here is your own valuation by Mr. Kensington of £35,000: how do you reconcile the two statements?—l should say your statement is absolutely contrary to fact, because in an interview I had with a number of Natives who were interested, and with the Native Minister present, they refused to entertain a proposal for a considerable amount beyond that when the Government were prepared to give it to them. 63. Beyond what? —Beyond the amount you have named. You say .£15,000. 64. Certainly, and you paid a deposit on it?—As far as I know no such offer was even made. 65. Did the Government, or anybody on its behalf, pay a deposit on this land to buy it for a sum of £15,000? —My answer to that is that I personally, with the full concurrence of Cabinet, agreed to offer the Natives many thousands of pounds beyond that, and they refused it. 66. It passed at £25,000 to the people who got it, and there is your own valuation, signed by Mr. Kensington, that the Crown might go as far as £35,000, and yet you could have got it at £15,000? —Mv impression from memory is that, in addition to the price we were offering to the Natives, we had also to pay off a large mortgage in addition. I know we offered a great deal more than £15,000 and they would not take it. 67. Here is Mr. Kensington's valuation of £35,000 in his report, Exhibit 35 of the MokauMohakatino inquiry of 1911? —I do not question Mr. Kensington's report. It is on record, and is available to every member of the Committee. His report is undoubtedly reliable. I say our offer to the Natives which was refused was, with the amount of a mortgage we had to pay, several thousands of pounds above Mr. Kensington's valuation. 68. Mr. Statham.] If the Natives were willing to sell at £15,000, that would be subject to the leasehold interest? —I am speaking from memory, but I know that, on behalf of the Government, I saw a number of the Natives and offered them a considerable amount beyond £15,000. My impression is that it was about £24,000. There was a mortgage for a large amount in addition that we were to pay. I recollect perfectly well that at first they were inclined to take the offer, and that afterwards they refused it; and then there was a mortgage on it for a large sum in addition to the price the Government were prepared to give the Natives, and the two together exceeded Mr. Kensington's valuation by some thousands of pounds. But, in any case, that is all on record somewhere. 69. Mr. Jones.] Perhaps I ought not to ask this; but, assuming "that these gentlemen here recommend the Government to do anything, will you grant them your powerful support?—l would be prepared to carefully consider any report the Committee might make, but I could not give a promise as to what I would do.