177

G.—2a

sections were not made to Kemp so that the Whatanuis might have the choice of which section they would take. No. 14 was not handed to Kemp for the descendants of Te Whatanui. They never had a vested right in that block. I cannot swear that No. 14 was ever No. 3, or that it was never No. 3. If No. 14 had been No. 3on the 25th November, 1886, the Government could not have taken it out of our hands to give to the descendants of Te Whatanui. They took it out of our hands because we had not disposed of it. If the order for No. 3on the 25th November, 1886, had been an effective order the Government could not have interfered with it or traversed our order. lam firmly convinced there was no order on the 25th November, 1886, for No. 3 over the section now known as No. 14. As I read the minutes, Nicholson's objections on the 25th November, 1886, related to what is now No. 14. Kemp said first that the Ngatiraukawa objected to No. 14; Nicholson's objection followed. There was no delineation on the plan of No. 14 until the order was made for it. Ido not know how to explain it, but I know that No. 14 was never awarded to Kemp for descendants of Whatanui. No. 14 was not delineated on the plan on the 25th November, 1886—I do not think so. No. 14 was delineated on the plan on the 3rd December, 1886, when it was awarded to Kemp for himself alone. This was some days after the 1,200 acres was awarded him for the descendants of Te Whatanui. I am not prepared to swear that No. 3 was not No. 14, but that is my recollection—that it was not. I will not say that Nicholson's objection was to No. 14. It was Kemp who said there was an objection to No. 14. I will swear that when what is No. 14 came before the Court Kemp and one of Whatanui's descendants said it would not be accepted. The boundaries were not defined on that day—the 25th November, 1886. The application from Major Kemp on the 3rd December, 1886, for confirmation of that order, &c, does not refer to any of the orders or anything that was done on the 25th November, 1886. It was not a confirmation of any order made on that date, nor did it refer to anything done on the Ist December, 1886." In reply to Mr. Baldwin witness stated, " There was evidence taken as to the voluntary arrangement. Kemp and McDonald were both on their oath when they made their statement about the arrangement. The Court was perfectly satisfied that there was a voluntary arrangement. If an order was made for 1,200 acres where No. 14 now is on the 25th November, 1886, it was not an effective order. The Ngatiraukawa objected to it, or it probably would have been awarded to them as No. 3. It was afterwards awarded to Kemp for himself. lam pretty sure we made no order for No. 3 over ground that was afterwards No. 14. The first application for No. 14 was made either on the Ist or 2nd December. There was no order made on either of those dates. The application stood over till the last day of the Court; I did not hurry the matter. T gave plenty of time to the people to object, and challenged very carefully, because Kemp applied for the land for himself. I made the usual challenge. In this case I would be most careful to challenge objectors, because a chief was asking us to excise a piece of land for himself. I am sure objectors were challenged on the first occasion No. 14 came before the Court. I repeat that the clerk was wrong in using the word 'confirmation'; there was no order to confirm. I rested satisfied with the application in No. 14 without further evidence. We were satisfied that there was a voluntary arrangement, and the application was sufficient. I think Kemp said, in making the application, that he was entitled to the 1,200 acres for what he had done, or something to that effect. I cannot recollect exactly. At any rate, he asked the Court to award it to him for himself, and objectors were challenged before the orders were made. I did not consider it my duty to explain to the people that Kemp was getting a very substantial interest in No. 14. I was not empowered to disturb the voluntary arrangement, even by imposing restrictions. I took the voluntary arrangement as it came to me, and gave effect to it. I have no doubt that Mr. McDonald was present in Court on the 3rd December, 1886, but I think Kemp made the application for No. 14 ; but Mr. McDonald may have done so. Kemp was certainly present, and I know he made the application on the Ist December, 1886." In reply to Henare Apatari witness stated, " There was no objection to No. 14 being awarded to Kemp. I was not present when the tribe selected Kemp as owner of No. 14. I was in Court. Kemp brought No. 14 before the Court. He claimed it, and asked to have it awarded to him. He claimed it on account of having done so much for his people in connection with this land. He said his people consented to his having it. He said nothing about his ancestral rights to it. There was nothing said about Kemp being entitled to it by occupation. No. 14 came before us as part of the voluntary scheme for partition of the whole block." In reply to Mr. Beddard witness stated, "I never heard of any dispute about No. 14 until after the Court at Wanganui. I made the final order for No. 9to the descendants of Te Whatanui on the Ist December, 1886. We never awarded No. 14 to them. The order for No. 14 is dated the 3rd December, 1886. If Nicholson made any objection to No. 14 it must have been a general objection, as I am satisfied that we never made any delineation of No. 14 for the descendants of Te Whatanui. There never was any intention to give the descendants of Te Whatanui No. 14. When Kemp asked for No. 14 he asked for it for himself." In reply to Mr. Stafford witness stated, "It is quite possible that an order may have been verbally made for 1,200 acres on the 25th November, 1886, but it was not finally made, and Lewis then removed it from the Court. He could not have done so if the order had been valid. He could only have done so subject to the order, which would have been an absurdity. As a matter of fact no such order had been made. The order made on the 25th November, 1886, did not relate to No. 14." The Commissioners, in commenting on Judge Wilson's evidence, remark, " Mr. Wilson, a Judge of the Native Land Court, who presided at a Court in 1886 when this block was subdivided, and who gave very positive evidence as to what occurred before him in 1886, is, we think, undoubtedly wrong in his recollection. We refer to Mr. Wilson's evidence especially, because he is above suspicion ; and it is a striking instance of the difficulty, nay, almost impossibility, of

23— G. 2a.