I.—B

74

is a mistake of no importance at all, and the Committee can now see how the mistake was allowed to creep in. The Clerk has mixed up the date of the 31st October, 1877, with the 2nd December, 1876, and has filled in the place " Porangahau," which was properly applicable to the order as to the smaller blocks. It is a trivial error ; but it is made the subject, not only of comment, but of notes of admiration in the memorandum, and therefore I presume that the writer thought it was of some importance. However, the notice, as the date will show, was a recital of the Order in Council. We have already been informed that the Order in Council was not drafted at the Native Land Court Office—we have been informed that it was done in Wellington by Wellington officials, officials of the Native Department; and the notice Mr. Dickey drew up recited the Order in Council. No doubt the information for the Order in Council may have been obtained in some manner from the Native Land Court Office ; but the origin was in the Native Office, and the Government was responsible for it. Now, on pages 9 and 10 of the memorandum it is suggested that Mr. Fenton was in communication in Wellington with Dr. Buller and Mr. Studholme. " Suggested," I say, because the memorandum uses these words: "At this time Judge Fenton was in Wellington, and the people who suggested to him that the case had been reheard must have been residents in or visitors to Wellington. Clearly it was not the Taupo Natives ; and one can. only infer who suggested it by the other surroundings of the case." I very much complain of suggestions of that kind made against a private person by a gentleman to whose word so much weight would be attached as the Premier of the colony. And I submit that the evidence has dispelled the inference which the writer of the memorandum sought to draw from the circumstances to which he alludes. For Mr. Fenton's evidence has disposed of the inference that the rehearing was postponed, to the damage of the Taupo and Patea Natives, at the instance of Dr. Buller or Mr. Studholme. The words from which I draw that inference are : " His object appears to have been, not, however, to obtain any redress for these Taupo claimants, but to get an adjournment of the Court, and that without consulting the claimants who resided at Taupo, or any person acting for them. Notwithstanding the enormous delays they had already been put to about their rehearing, Judge Fenton adjourns the Court sine die." Now, Mr. Fenton explained that he was in Wellington in attendance upon the Government; and the Committee will remember that in that year the important Act of 1880 was passed—an Act which could not very well have been passed without the advice and the assistance of the Chief Judge. And I believe it was passed late in the session of 1880. Mr. Fenton has explained that he did not know when he would be able to leave Wellington—when he would be able to get away from the duties which he was compelled to perform in connection with the passing of the Act of 1880. And therefore (not for the reasons suggested in the memorandum) he adjourned the rehearing sine die —because he could not fix a date. As to Dr. Buller's object in asking for an adjournment, I know nothing, and have nothing to say. Whether it is proper to attack an absent man I do not know ; but, at all events so far as I can, I will abstain from doing so. However, Dr. Buller told the Chief Judge that some of the applicants resided at a considerable distance from Napier. Ido not think that the Chief Judge would have been justified in assuming, as the writer of the memorandum assumes, that the gentleman who so informed him had some sinister object, and was practically endeavouring to work the interests of his clients by misrepresentation to a high judicial officer. Then I come to the telegram of the 26th July, 1880, and the comments of the memorandum upon that telegram. Mr. Fenton, giving his evidence before the Committee, was bound to tell the truth with reference to that telegram. It happened that the truth reflected upon Dr. Buller, and we could not by any possibility help doing so. Mr. Fenton and myself feel the unpleasant position in which we have been placed in having to refer to this matter. But we are not answerable for that position. The writer of the memorandum knew that Dr. Buller was absent from the colony ; and the comment upon this telegram necessarily drove us into what has been a very unpleasant position—the contradiction of statements made by an absent man, who is not here to meet that contradiction. I say we were driven into that position by the writer of the memorandum, and I complain of being compelled to elicit evidence upon that point; but I felt bound to elicit it from Mr. Fenton, who positively denies that he did give the advice which he is stated to have given by Dr. Buller's telegram to Mr. Dickey of the 26th July, 1880 ; though he says frankly that he sees nothing improper in the course which is attributed to him by Dr. Buller, and that he should not consider it improper to advise litigants in his Court to see if they could not make terms among themselves. He denies that he said what was attributed to him. He did not see the telegram till long afterwards. It had been sent to Auckland, and he did not reach Auckland for some time afterwards. He has explained why. He was at Auckland for a short time, then he held his Court at Napier, and then he went to fulfil his duties as President of the Thermal Springs Commission before he returned to Auckland again. He says he did not see the telegram for a longtime afterwards. Then it is suggested that when he did see it he ought to have taken some action to clear himself in the matter. Hon. Sir R. Stout: You have mixed up this explanation with another matter. The going to the Thermal Springs was in connection with his going to Napier. Mr. Bell: The explanation was given in connection with that, but it applies equally to this. I was saying, however, that it is suggested that he ought to have taken action immediately to clear himself. What action he should have taken I myself am unable to understand, nor what object there would have been months afterwards in entering into a controversy with Dr. Buller. Ido not think that would have been a very dignified course, and I do not think it would have been consistent with the dignity of the Chief Judge to have entered into any discussion of the matter. Mr. Stewart: Could he not have written across the telegram, " This statement is untrue "? Mr. Bell: Yes, certainly. I suppose he could have done so, but Ido not think there was any necessity for him to do so. No doubt he would have done so if he had thought that he was to be subjected to an attack of the kind he has been subjected to. I think the natural impulse of any man is to take some action in a case of this kind ; but his well-considered course is to let it alone. Such a telegram as this was likely to cause him to take some action; but his well-advised action was to