76

C—s

No. 83. Mr. J. A. Wilson to the Commissionees, and remarks by Dr. Giles. Land Purchase Office, G-isborne, 20th November, 1876. MemoiulNDTtsi to the Commissioner showing Reasons why certain Evidence which I was prepared to adduce at the late Inquiry, and which Evidence was ruled by the Commissioners to be inadmissible, ought, I respectfully submit, to have been received. 1. In regard to the passage following contained iu my report of the 6th June, 1876 : — "And further, had a Judge of the Native Land "We think that our view of this matter is Court presided who could have taken Government justified by obvious considerations of equity and business sometimes, instead of cases in which Mr. of the rules of evidence. If it were proved that Read is interested always (I believe, one solitary the Court has only adjudicated cases in which case cxcepted, that the time of the Court in my Mr. Read had an interest, and none in which the district, during the year under report has been Government had any, to what would this amount? entirely engrossed in adjudicating where Read Transposed, it simply means that one purchaser requires titles, while not a single case has been had an interest in all the cases that came before adjudicated iu which Natives claim who have the Court, and another purchaser in none of them, parted with their land to Government) —had This might prove the great extent of Mr. Read's these conditions been permitted to obtain, then land speculations, but could never justify any the Government would have had its deeds and imputation against the Court. The only way to the Natives their money long ago." make good such imputations would be to show I submit that it was material to show that I. was that cases in which the Government was injustified by the circumstances in reporting said terested had been duly brought before the Court, general facts in the general manner set forth in and unduly and without sufficient reasons postthe foregoing statements. That touching these poned or neglected, statements 1 was prepared with the evidence of the Clerk of the Native Land Court to show by his books that blocks in which Government was interested had not been adjudicated during the year under report, and from his books, and by other evidence, I was prepared to show that during that period the Court had been engrossed in adjudicating where Read required titles. That it was the more necessary to produce this evidence, and to prove the statements contained in this part of my report, because the passage named had been instanced by the Commission at an early stage of the inquiry as a proof that a The passage contains a most distinct charge clear and distinct charge had been made in the that the Court had made itself subservient to a report against the Judge. And further, because private speculator. this indication was made in reply to an opinion We are glad to have this opinion in Mr. Wilexpressed by myself—viz., that my report of the son's own writing. 6th June did not contain any charge against Jud^e Rogan. The proposal by the Commission We consider this the only proper mode by that I should take a special case in which Govern- which the charge in the report could be subment was interested, and prove when that case stantiated. If I report _that a man is dishonest, ought to have been heard by Judge Rogan, was, and if lam asked to show what he has stolen, am I respectfully submit, a proposal to prove some- Ito decline on the ground that this is a proposal thing outside iny report. to prove something outside my report ? The repoi-t dealt not, and was not intended to, So much the worse for the report, deal with special cases, or with any isolated case; while so far from saying that Judge Rogan could This passage is worthy of note. After denying have taken Government business at any time that he had made any charges in his report, Mr. within the period named, the report I submit Wilson now explains the words of that report shows the contrary, notwithstanding it assumes it to mean that the Judge was not his own master. as possible that another Judge might have been If what he now says does not mean this it means able to do so. nothing. And this after declining a challenge to 2. Regarding the following paragraph in the bring specific proof of undue delay or neglect, report: —" I have to add another matter, however, which could be brought with ease if there were in reference to the remarkable character of the any truth in the charge. Is not this stabbing iu opposition itself. I hold evidence from several the dark ? respectable European witnesses showing, on his We have referred to this in our report. We own statement, that Mr. Cooper, a principal and can only wonder what sort of estimate Mr. Wilmanager, did deliberately frame his arrangements son sets on the character of his neighbour when upon an assumed and asserted partiality of the he seeks to asperse it on such testimony as this. Court for Read." I would submit that having A. is to be proved a thief bv bringing Bto swear shown, by evidence, that Read and Cooper are that he heard C call him one. united in the opposition mentioned in the report as remarkable; that they have an agreement drawn by a lawyer ; that the former has provided funds to the extent of £7,000, while the latter J. Giles.