93

1.—17

in his opinion, given in the absence of any grounds being supplied to the Court upon which an action could be based, " because," said the learned gentleman, " if you had supplied the Court with the information you allege here, that you had been prevented by any conduct on the part of the other side from carrying out the compact, the Court might have given a different judgment." "However," he said, "we will get Mr. Treadwell here." A day or two later he produced Mr. Treadwell, who exhibited an affidavit that had been laid before the five Judges at the hearing on the 20th July, 1908, containing the same statement as to my being thwarted in dealing with the property as i had stated in the petition and before this honourable Committee. Nor is this all that astounds me. 1 ask leave to quote what the Chief Justice says on the bench (Dominion,, 31st May, 1911), referring to the judgment of the 20th July, 1908. He says, "The Court dismissed the action as frivolous. The affidavits were before the Court. They (the Judges) may have been wrong, but there was a right of appeal to the Privy Council." It may be noted that the same learned Chief Justice, who in 1908 was one of the Full Court that threw the case out as being " frivolous " and refusing right of appeal, in 1911 says, " The affidavits were before the Court. They (the Judges) may have been wrong, but there was a right of appeal to the Privy Council." 1 beg leave to hand in tile Dominion containing the judgment of the 31st May, 1911. The situation was the same in both instances —there had been no change in the position. I respectfully submit that under these extraordinary circumstances 1 am justified in asking the Committee to recommend that an Act of Parliament be provided to enable me to have a trial of the action in this Dominion, and upon the further and special ground that if an action succeeded in London another action would have to be tried in this country to be effectual (vide counsel's opinion in possession of the Committee). Had the Full Court given the decision in 1908 that I hold it should have done, I believe 1 should have been established in possession upon trial of the action. In 1910 an arrangement was made whereby the Government could have bought the freehold of the land and dealt with myself to my satisfaction, and with the alleged holder of the leaseholds under the statute, but the arrangement was not carried out. (Note : Sir J. Ward and Mr. Treadwell deny that such arrangement was made with respect to the land and minerals, but I ask for the production of the telegram of April, 1910, written by Treadwell at the request of Sir J. Carroll, signed and sent by the latter to Sir J. Ward at Invercargill, which will support my contention that such an arrangement was made.) As to the connection of the Government with the difficulties created with respect to the pro--perty in recent years, 1 beg to point out that it was at the suggestion of Sir J. Ward I petitioned Parliament after the decision of the Full Court in 1908 had been given, upoii his assurance that he would be glad to give effect to any recommendation in my favour that a. Committee might make. Sir Joseph repudiated this in his evidence before the Committee a few days ago, but I beg to refer to his reply to Mr. Jennings in the House in August, 1908, that Mr. Jones should petition Parliament and have his case reported fin by the representatives of the people—for what purpose, I might be permitted to ask, if it were not as a guide to the Government in assisting met However, there is the statement of Treadwell, the solicitor who acted for me, in his letter to myself of the 29th October, 1908, as follows : " The writer several times saw the AttorneyGeneral with reference to the matter, and a perfectly plain intimation was given to him by Dr. Findlay that the Government would not either appjsint a Commission to deal with or investigate the allegations in the petition. The Government cannot, of course, prevent dealings with the land, but we had an intimation from Dr. Findlay before the end of the session that no legislation would be introduced " (i.e., legislation foi relief). It must be remembered that at this time (October, 1908) the firm of Findlay and Dalziell were the solicitors for Herrman Lewis, the person to whom the agents of Flower's executors, Messrs. Travers and Campbell, had transferred the Mokau property for no consideration whatever. Dalziell, it appears from the evidence, was the applicant to the Cabinet for the Order in Council, and a peculiar state of affairs is disclosed by the said Lewis before the Committees of 1908 and 1911 upon this case : that Robert Orr, an employee of Travers-Campbell, put him on to the property, and Campbell, who was his solicitor and also solicitor for the executors at the same time, advised him to buy the property. He says, "In fact, I purchased the property on his (Campbell's) recommendation." If that is not collusion by the executor's agents with a dummy I would ask the Committee to consider what is. The mortgage by Lewis to T. G. Macarthy, who had not loaned a farthing on the property, for £25,000 was effected through the same office. I submit that the blocking of the recommendation of the Legislative Council Committee by the Attorney-General was an interference with the rights conferred on me by the Committee in their recommendation. This inquiry was never held. It is necessary here to state that Dr. Findlay gives the blank denial to the statement of Treadwell. He says that he did not refuse the inquiry (Hansard, 1910, pp. 597-600), and professes that it was the Prime Minister that had the power to set it up. My answer to that is my belief that if he had submitted and recommended the report to Cabinet there was no reason why the inquiry should not have been set up. It has been stated by the Prime Minister in the House that the Solicitor-General had reported that such inquiry could not be set up. I reply that Dr. Findlay refused the inquiry to Treadwell on the 7th October, 1908j before the Solicitor-General had been consulted. The dates will show this. It is stated by the Prime Minister (Hansard, 14th November, 1910), and by Dr. Findlay in the Council or (and) before the A to L Committee, 1910, that the Ohinemuri decision was a bar to any inquiry. My answer to that is that the inquiry was refused by Dr. Findlay as Attorney-General in October, 1908, and the Ohinemuri decision was not given until April or May, 1909. I submit to the Committee that the recommendations 5 and 6 of the A to L Committee, 1910, were unjustly ignored by the Government to my prejudice, and to the benefit of Herrman Lewis,