175

G.—2a

Whatanui had made an objection. I did not know that the descendants of Te Whatanui collectively had objected. I used the word ' confirm' before the Commission in the sense that the voluntary arrangements required confirmation. If Judge Wilson says that Kemp made the application for No. 14 on the 3rd December, I must differ from him. . . . When I applied for what is now No. 14 on the 3rd December I indicated that I wanted confirmation of the order made for it on the 25th November. I cannot remember what the number of it was on that date. It was still No. 3, as far as I know, on the 3rd December. It was the section that was No. 3on the 25th November. No part of the list referring to No. 14 is in my handwriting. I admit that it appears to have been handed in by Kemp on the 3rd December. I believe it was first put into Court on the 25th November. ... I repeat that I made the application for the Ohau section, No. 14, on my own responsibility, very likely without consulting Kemp. I consider that I had authority to do it, and I supposed it was necessary to have the former order confirmed. ... Ido not remember ever telling any member of the Muaupoko Tribe that I considered that Kemp held No. 14 in trust. I have never told any of the Ngatiraukawa that Kemp held No. 14 in trust. Until a few days before the Commission sat I never mentioned to Sir Walter Buller that I considered Kemp a trustee for No. 14, although I knew he was in occupation of part of it. I do not remember having mentioned the question of trust in No. 14 to Messrs. Stevens, Donald Fraser, and Barnicoat; but I remember saying to Barnicoat that I wondered when the question would crop up. I cannot fix in my mind any time I mentioned the question of trust in No. 14 to Mr. Donald Fraser. If he says I never spoke to him about it I will believe him. I could not mention it to Kemp after 1890, as we were not friendly then." The most of Mr. McDonald's evidence about No. 14 being an alternative section is inconclusive, as the following citations from it will show : "I cannot now point to anything in my previous evidence that would indicate a trust in No. 14. I cannot for the moment recollect or point to any documentary evidence before 1896 that would indicate alternative sections. There was no question raised, so far as I know, before 1896 about No. 14. I never applied for it (No. 14) as an alternative allotment. Ido not remember ever telling any member of the Muaupoko Tribe that I considered Kemp held No. 14 in trust. I never mentioned to Sir Walter Buller until a few days before the Commission sat that I considered Kemp a trustee for No. 14, although I knew that he (Sir Walter Buller) was in occupation of part of it. Ido not remember having mentioned the question of trust in No. 14 to Messrs. Stevens, Donald Fraser, and Barnicoat, but I remember saying to Barnicoat that I wondered when the question would crop up. I cannot fix in my mind any time I mentioned the question of trust in No. 14 to Mr. Donald Fraser. If he says I never spoke to him about it I will believe him. I could not mention it to Kemp after 1890, as we were not friendly then." Before the Supreme Court in 1894 Mr. McDonald spoke as if he was merely assisting Major Kemp, and was not acting, apparently, with the authority that he has since clothed himself with. In reply to Mr. Barnicoat, Mr. McDonald stated, " I was present at Judge Wilson's Court in 1886 during the subdivision of the Horowhenua Block. Was engaged by the Eailway Company. Kemp was on crutches. I did all I could for him. My recollection is that I had to appear from day to day. Was not engaged in any of the subdivisions but the railway-line, but was present in Court the whole time, and assisted Kemp to get the subdivisions made." In reply to Mr. Edwards, the witness stated : " I do not know all that took place in that barn (meaning Palmerson's barn, where the Muaupoko were housed). I went to the barn two or three times a day to see what was doing. I was assisting Major Kemp." By the tenor of Mr. McDonald's more recent evidence it will be perceived that he has assumed the position of an accredited agent, and taken upon himself to carry out arrangements that he admits he did not consult his principal about. As regards the reliability of Mr. McDonald's evidence, his own statements throw doubt upon it, as the following extracts from evidence given by himself at different times will show: — In 1891, before the rehearing Court, under examination by Mr. Barnicoat in respect of Horowhenua No. 11, Mr. McDonald, after stating that he took a particular, especial interest in the discussion because Wirihana Hunia declared that unless his brother was put in the title, that he would not agree to the others, and his work was in danger, remarked, " I wish to say that, having heard what has been said about this in Court, I may unconsciously confuse what I have heard with what I know." Before the Supreme Court in 1894 Mr. McDonald, when under cross-examination by Mr. Edwards, said, " I find great difficulty in disentangling what took place in my mind and what has taken place since. I find great difficulty in doing so and what I have heard since " ; and, in reply to a question as to the number of times he had given evidence about the matter, witness stated, " I was never allowed before to tell my story. I do not say that my memory is confused. I have talked about the matter times out of number." Under cross-examination by Sir Walter Buller before the Boyal Commission Mr. McDonald stated, in reply to a question as to whether he was certain that he was stating the facts correctly, or whether he was trusting to a defective memory, " No ; this thing has been so drilled into me that this is about the twentieth time I have given evidence, and I think the evidence I have given has always been the same. You admit that your memory is defective ?—Not that I know of. Why did you state that in the Supreme Court ?—What I understood I said is this : that I cannot recollect some circumstances as to whether they occurred before or after a certain point of time, but I can trust my memory as to what I said and did myself." In reply to a further question on the same subject witness stated, inter alia, that " Some circumstances which have occurred have been so dinned and drilled into one that I cannot say whether they occurred at a particular time or whether I have heard of them since, but I have no doubt at all as to what I said and did myself." The Commissioners, in their report, after commenting on the unreliable nature of the evidence, state as follows: " A large amount of the testimony is hearsay, and it is evident to us that matters