No. 31.
Memorandum by the Chief Judge of the Native Land Court on the above.

Mr. Macandrew is wrong in stating that the Court proceeded on ex parte statements. The Crown was represented throughout the proceedings by counsel, Mr. Turton; and whenever the Provincial interests were concerned as distinct from the Crown, by separate counsel for the Superintendent. The Court refused to hear the Superintendent's counsel as simply representing the lands of the Crown, for the Crown was there itself, in the person of Mr. Turton, who appeared for the Attorney-General, "in the presence of the superior the power of the inferior ceases," and anything that Mr. Macandrew wished to state could (as I stated before) be stated through the Crown lawyer.

It seemed to me, at the time that the Provincial authorities seemed a little hurt because the Court felt that it could not recognize them as practically an independent authority and (as regards Crown lands) sovereign. But it appeared to me that the law prohibited us from doing that. All the selections were assented to by Mr. Turton.

page 260

As far as I know the order in this case was well and effectually made, and should in my judgment be supported.