Rents and Other Moneys.

I come now to the large sums of money received by Major Kemp during the last three and twenty years in the shape of rents, royalties on timber, and purchase-money. The Commission has had Major Kemp's account of how these moneys have been expended : large sums have been spent in costs and in the general administration of the estate, and, from time to time, considerable sums have been paid over to the tribe. There is no direct evidence that Major Kemp has spent any of this money on his own concerns, except a sum of £400 which was sent to him by the tribe to be expended on a house he was building at Wanganui. Mr. John McDonald has told the Commission of the large sums he has paid to lawyers by Major Kemp's direction. He has mentioned two payments to Mr. Southey Baker—one of £400, and another of £1300; and he has expressed his candid belief that the whole of the money has been spent by Major Kemp in the interests of the tribe. Hoani Puihi (called by Mr. McDonald) has given an account of the manner in which the first sum of £400 received from Mr. Hector McDonald (in 1876) was distributed. The chiefs of the tribe divided it, and they apportioned £100 to Major Kemp as his individual share. Acting like a Maori chief, before leaving the place, Kemp handed the £100 back to the tribe, and went home without a shilling in his pocket. When £500 had to be found for Mr. Edwards, Major Kemp raised the money by mortgaging his own land, Block XIV., and he has since paid £300 more on the same account. He had previously paid to the same solicitor, on his being retained by the tribe, during my absence in England, £100. So that Major Kemp has paid costs amounting to nearly £1000 in the recent case in the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal, where he succeeded in establishing the trust. In passing, I would here remind the Com-missiion of Major Kemp's statement on oath, that of all these large sums paid to lawyers I have hitherto not taken a single shilling.

Everyone seems to have come to Kemp for money. When Warena Hunia was in difficulties, by his own shewing he came to Kemp and page 28 got £140; and, every now and then, Wirihana Hunia got £100 from the same source. Kemp never kept account books and seldom took a receipt for any of these moneys. He received the money like a chief, and paid it away like a chief, I submit that the readiness with which the members of the tribe came forward and signed the deed of release and discharge when asked to do is proof that the people were perfectly well satisfied with Major Kemp's administration of the estate. The Ngatipariri did not sign the deed, and they were not asked to, because there was a feud over Warena's claim under the partition order of the Native Land Court. But for that, there can be no doubt they would all have signed just as readily. From 1873 to 1886 Major Kemp had been sole trustee, and so satisfactory had been his management that at the division Court of 1886 the tribe clamoured to have his name put in again alone for Block XI. Most unfortunately, Major Kemp yielded to Wirihana's demand that Warena's name should go in as well, and that was the commencement of all the trouble. The deed of release and discharge is, I submit, a complete answer to the demand now made for accounts to be filed. The Chief Justice, by his judgment in the case heard at Wanganui, required Major Kemp to account for all moneys received for Block No. XI, coupling his name with that of the defendant, Warena Hunia, but after argument before the full Court that portion of the decree, as against Major Kemp, was struck out, and all the rest of the judgment allowed to stand. The deed of release and confirmation was therefore held by the Court of Appeal to be sufficient to discharge Major Kemp from all liability to account for the moneys he had received, so far as those who had signed it were concerned. I ask this Commission to adopt the same view. The evidence of Mr. Hector McDonald and the other witnesses called by me, to say nothing of my own evidence, shows that its scope and effect were perfectly well understood by the Muaupoko people, who came forward and executed it without the slightest demur, one and all expressing themselves satisfied with Major Kemp's past management of the tribal estate. Kerehi Tomo, under cross-examination, said: "It was fully explained to us that the deed would release Major Kemp from all rents from 1873 to 1886, and from 1886 to the date of the deed. We were confirming what Kemp had done as trustee."

But I go further and say that, quite apart from the formal deed of release and discharge, there has been a general acquiescence on the part of the Muaupoko in all that Major Kemp has done during the last three and twenty years. If not, how is it that no step whatever has been taken by the tribe, or by some member of the tribe, to restrain Major Kemp from receiving and spending the moneys in the manner he had been doing ? Lawyers without end seem to have been employed and yet not a single step has ever been taken to restrain him in this respect—there has never even been so much as a letter of protest So far as the evidence goes, there has never been even a remonstrance page 29 from anyone to Major Kemp by word of mouth ! When the Government failed—partly through my instrumentality—to carry their measure of 1894, authorizing the Minister of Lands to pay the balance of £4000 to Warena Hunia, and a rumour became current that they would pay the money notwithstanding, the Muaupoko immediately applied to the Supreme Court and got a prohibition against Warena Hunia receiving that money or any part of it. A copy of the prohibition was served on the Treasury, and another on the Auditor-General; and in this way the payment of the money was effectually barred. Nothing would have been easier than to obtain a prohibition against Major Kemp's receiving and paying away moneys; but during all these three and twenty years such a thing was apparently never dreamt of. There can be only one conclusion from this : the Muaupoko were perfectly well satisfied with what Kemp was doing. And, but for this unfortunate quarrel with Warena Hunia over the title, I venture to say that nothing would have been heard of it now. Even as late as 1889—three years after the division Court—we find Wirihana Hunia writing a long friendly letter to Major Kemp, condemning Warena for his assumed right to deal with the land and generally recognizing Kemp's right to do very much as he pleased. When in 1890 the lawyers had discovered, as they thought, that Warena was an absolute owner and not a trustee, Wirihana's attitude entirely changed, and since that time—according to his own account—he has spent £6000 in law costs !

The sale of the Township of Levin to the Crown took place nearly ten years ago-If the story now set up is true, how is it that no protest has ever been sent to the Government?—how is it that not a single step was taken to prevent the payment of those large sums to Major Kemp ? I say, Sir, that the whole history of the matter implies the fullest and most absolute acquiescence on the part of the Muaupoko tribe in what Major Kemp was doing—the fullest approval of his action in regard to the purchase-money, the rents, and the timber royalties received by him, from time to time, with the full knowledge of the tribe; for there was no concealment about it. It was all above-board and a matter of notoriety in the district. If I am not right in this conclusion, then how was it that, after the Court of 1891, the malcontents (represented by Warena Hunia) offered to let Major Kemp have a slice of 3500 acres out of Block XL, for himself, without a word being said about the large sums he was known to have received and disbursed? It is perfectly clear from Mr. Donald Fraser's evidence that this was pressed upon Major Kemp, and that he refused to agree, because the proposed division would take the eyes out of the block, and leave nothing but swamp and sandhills for the tribe.