Purchase by the Crown.

Now I have a word to say about the sale by Warena Hunia to the Government. The agent for the Crown, on the opening of these proceedings, deprecated my referring to this as a "technically fraudulent transaction." But what are the facts as disclosed by the evidence! I do earnestly hope that the Commission, however unpleasant it may be, will not hesitate to express its opinion of this official act by or on behalf of the Minister of Lands. The tribunal is of his own choosing and public justice requires that the report should be as far-reaching as the enquiry has been exhaustive.

It has been abundantly proved that the purchase was made and the £2000 paid to Warena Hunia after the most distinct notice of the trust. A Committee of the House had more than once reported that Block XI. was held by the two chiefs in trust. Accordingly, to protect the trust, Mr. Ballance had in 1892 got a minute passed by his Cabinet authorising the issue of a proclamation under the Native land Purchase Act, 1892. The Minister for Native Affairs (Mr. Seddon had stated in the House that he was satisfied of the existence of a trust; the Minister of Lands himself had given an assurance that no money would be paid until there had been a full enquiry. And yet the £2000 was paid to Warena Hunia—not publicly in the presence of the tribe—but privately through the post-office at Bull's, Mr. Donald Fraser being the only person who was in the secret. Nothing was known of this payment till it was elicited from Warena Hunia in the Supreme Court at Wanganui—long after the whole of the money had been spent. The document put in by Mr. Sheridan is, to my mind, the most incriminating thing in the whole of the evidence. The transfer on his showing, was executed on the 21st October, 1893—a deed acknowledging payment of £6000. The purchase-money was not paid because the District Land Registrar would not register the transfer owing to the existence of caveats, and then nearly a year afterwards (1st September, 1894) the £2000 was paid to Warena Hunia-and this, too, after an action had been commenced against Warena Hunia in the Supreme Court for the assertion of the trust, and had actually been set down for hearing at the September Sitting of the Court at Wanganui. The transaction, when it came to light, provoked a page 19 severe remark from the Chief Justice on the Bench, as well it might. That the Government knew well enough what they were about is sufficiently clear from the Memorandum of Mr. Haselden, of the Justice Department, which was referred to by the Chairman. If this does not constitute legal fraud, I should like to know what does!

When J put Mr. Sheridan, the Chief Land Purchase Officer, in the witness-box, I had to ask the Commission to let me treat him as a hostile witness, and I had good reason for doing so. Mr. Sheridan, early in his evidence, stated that I had " deceived,: him as to what passed between Mr. Seddon and myself, and thereby induced him to draft a clause for " The Native Land Claims and Boundaries Adjustment and Titles Empowering Act " of 1894 to meet the Horowhenua case. But after I had read and put in my correspondence with Mr. Seddon, the witness was compelled to withdraw, unequivocally and unreservedly, his charge of my having deceived him. As I was acting at the time spoken of on Major Kemp's behalf, I should like to refer to the terms of the letter I addressed to Mr. Seddon on 20th June, 1894, and will therefore read it. (See Appendix " B.")

Mr. Sheridan admitted that he himself had, under instructions from the Minister, drafted clause 10 of "The Horowhenua Block Bill" as brought into the House in 1895, and that he had also drafted the Commission under which you are now sitting—his drafts being revised by the law officers of the Crown—and that his only reason for including Block XIV. was that " pressure was brought to bear by Hunia's side " to have this done. He admitted that, when he met me in front of the Premier's house, I told him at once that I objected to No. XIV. being included, as it was not a trust block. He declared on his oath that when he drafted clause 9 of the Commission he had no suspicion whatever that I had been concerned in any improper dealings with the land—that I was not in his mind at all—and that his only reason for including No. XIV. was that it was already in the draft clause (No. 10) in the Bill which had been dropped; but, curiously enough, as Mr. Sheridan has admitted, this very Bill had been drafted by himself! I may remind the Commission that Block XIV. was not in the Schedule drafted by Mr. Sheridan the year before (1894).

As to Mr. A. L. D. Fraser, the agent for the Crown, I have only a word to say. I recognize his amiable qualities, but I am really at a loss to know what brought him all the way from Hawke's Bay to appear in this case. During our dreary march though the wilderness of Horowhenua he has furnished, so to speak, the musical accompaniment. He has been to us as a "sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal." But looking to results, he seems to have come a long way to accomplish very little ! Of nearly every Muaupoko witness on both sides he asked this question, " Did not Rangirurupuni's name appear twice over in the original list for No. III. Block, to the page 20 exclusion of Te Rangimairehau's ?" And every witness answered in the affirmative. The amusing part of it, however, is that this was a clerical error winch the Commission had rectified on the very first day of the sittings, and no one has been more unconcerned about it throughout than Te Rangimairehau himself, who, as I understand, has long since disposed of the 105 acres affected, or supposed to be, by the mistake.

But all through the proceedings it was understood that Mr. Fraser had something important in reserve for the last day. Well, Sir, "the mountains were in labour and there came forth"—not a live mouse but a still-born Gazette of an ancient date containing an obsolete proclamation of 1878—and this was actually the only piece of evidence offered on behalf of the Crown ! That indeed appears to be the whole of the Government case—the proclamation under the long-since repealed Native Lands Act of 1877 ! But the contention that this proclamation is still in force is sheer nonsence. As everyone knows, it has long been obsolete and, as Mr. Sheridan admitted in his evidence, was only dug up the other day by Mr. Stafford when looking for material in the timber case against Mr. Bartholomew. If the proclamation was still in force, why was it necessary to pass an Act in 1891 with a suspensory clause, prohibiting all dealings with the Horowhenua Block No. XI till the end of the session following ? If still in force, why was it necessary to issue a fresh proclamation under the provisions of the Native Lands Purchase Act, 1892, further protecting Block XL against private dealings for a period of two years ? If, as I now understand the Government contention, the old proclamation has always remained in full force and effect, how is it that numerous dealings have been registered all over the Horowhenua Block outside of No. XL down to the passing of the Act of 1895 ? The whole thing is an afterthought, and it is now raised for the purpose of confusing the true issues. The whole history of the case, and the conduct of the Government all through, are inconsistents with the theory that there was all the time an operative proclamation barring any dealings except with the Crown.

Before passing on, I will refer to a suggestion made by Mr, McDonald in the course of his address—namely, that the whole cost of this Commission should be saddled upon Major Kemp, as the prime author of all the trouble. To this I would reply that Major Kemp was responsible for the Commission only to this extent: that he had, from the first, asserted a trust, and had insisted on both Warens Hunia and himself being divested of the title in favour of the Muaopoko tribe—that he had persistently fought this question before Committees of both Houses, in the Supreme Court, and finally before the Court of Appeal, and with a successful result on every occasion The Royal Commission was no doubt the outcome of all this trouble and contention; but Major Kemp had not applied for or desired it He was perfectly satisfied with the judgment of the Supreme Court, as page 21 affirmed by the Court of Appeal. I do not suppose that, in assessing costs, the Commission will proceed on any such principle as that advocated by Mr. McDonald; but, if they should, the person to be visited with that sort of punishment is Mr. McDonald himself, to whose bungling at the Court of 1S86, as already explained, the whole of the subsequent trouble is traceable.

I should also like to put Mr. Stevens right on one point. He Referred to the royalties received by Major Kemp for the sawingtimber on Block No. VI. He is evidently under a misapprehension, for Major Kemp has never taken a shilling of these royalties. It was arranged with his consent that a trust account should be opened at the Bank for all such payments, in the joint names of Major Kemp himself as Trustee, Mr. Edwards as Solicitor for Mr. Peter Bartholomew, and Mr. Marshall as Solicitor for those claiming as beneficiaries. As a matter of fact, the royalties, amounting to some £400, have been paid into another trust account, with which Major Kemp had nothing whatever to do. I would refer to just one other point in Mr. Stevens' address. He has asked the Commission to award a block of 3500 acres to warena Hunia in his own right, placing the other members of Hunia's family with the tribe. He has evidently forgotten that Warena Hunia himself, when in the witness-box, said that he was claiming this portion of the estate not for himself alone, but for the members of his family whose names he gave to the number of six. Of course I do not for a moment admit that "Warena Hunia's claims are anything like what his agent pretends; and I may remind the Commission that all the witnesses called on that side (except Himiona Kowhai) claimed equal rights with him.