W. F. MASSEY. M.P.

I—Ba.

34. Hon. Mr. Ngata.] I think we can boil the issues in this matter down to practically two, and I should like you to confirm them if you agree, Mr. Massey. The first is, that in issuing the Order in Council the Government committed a. breach of the public interest?—-They did something which was detrimental to the public interest. 35. In the second place, the transaction was not in the interest of the Native owners? —I am also of that opinion; but I do not want in any way to limit the inquiry. 36. I quite understand that; but these are the outstanding features of the oase from your standpoint ? —Yes. 37. With regard to the first point, that it was detrimental to the public interest ?—1 think you should add a third. I have expressed myself very strongly as being of opinion that the Government should have purchased the property themselves instead of allowing others to come in. 38. That is involved in the first issue. Coming to analyse that, would you go so far as to say that in permitting the alienation of this area of land to a private individual the Government were acting contrary to policy?-—Contrary to the best interests of the country, 1 should say; 1 mean, taking into account the size of the block. It is a proper thing for the Government to alienate blocks suitable for settlers. 39. If it were alienated under conditions securing the ordinary limitations of holdings, would you also regard that as against the public interests? —Yes, I see no reason for the third party coming in. 40. I want to recall to your mind a statement you are reported to have made, and that is this : " The lawyers who acted for the individual who owned the mortgage and who was purchasing the land from the Natives were Findlay, Dalziell, and Co.; the gentleman who signed the Order in Council was Sir James Carroll, Acting Prime Minister; the Chairman of the syndicate is an ex-Minister of Lands of very strong leasehold proclivities —Mr. Robert MoNab." Now, do you suggest anything by your juxtaposition of the names of gentlemen who were at one time members of the same Cabinet? —I think that my first statement will not be contradicted —that Findlay, Dalziell, and Co. were solicitors for Mr. Herrman Lewis. As to the next statement, I do not think I said that Sir James Carroll signed the Order in Council, but presided at the Executive Council meeting when the Order in Council was agreed to. lam not quite sure whether it is necessary for the gentleman who presides at an Executive meeting to sign an Order in Council. As to the third, at the time I spoke I was not quite clear whether the property was still in the hands of the first syndicate or whether a company had been formed. It turns out that a company had been formed, of which Mr. Robert McNab is chairman or president—a company calling itself " The Mokau Land and Estate Company." There are the three facts ; and I think I was justified in asking for an inquiry, seeing what had taken place. 41. But was not the suggestion in your juxtaposition of the three names this : that Dr. Findlay as a member of the Cabinet used his influence with the Acting Prime Minister to secure a concession to Mr. Robert McNab? —Oh, no. I cannot allow any one to place me in that position. 42. There was a suggestion in the juxtaposition of those three names of something improper? —No. In referring to Mr. McNab you will see the reference is to his leasehold proclivities. That is what I had in my mind. 43. The emphasis was on the leasehold proclivities?— Yes; that while Mr. McNab did everything he could while Minister of Lands to make the freehold impossible, so far as the Crown lands of this country were concerned, he himself was quite willing to become one of the purchasers of a large block of 53,000 acres of Native land. With regard to Findlay, Dalziell. and Co., I do not think that legal firm, with Sir John Findlay as its senior partner, should have allowed itself to be placed in the position of being solicitors for Mr. Herrman Lewis where an Order in Council was necessary to enable him to obtain the title. 44. Apart from the impropriety of it, is there any suggestion that the firm ?—I make no suggestion. 45. We will let it stand at that. Going a little further, you say that the Government could have bought all the interests involved in this block on terms that would enable it to put the land out at a price that would'not involve loss to the country? —That is my opinion. 46. Well, let us look at some of the facts submitted in the statement made by the Native Minister. " The Government was advised that it should not pay more than £35,000 for the whole estate in the land." By " the whole estate " is meant the freehold as well as the' other outstanding interests, including the leasehold interests. Supposing, therefore, that the land was the absolute freehold of the Natives unlimited by any leasehold interests, £35,000 was the price at which it would have paid the Crown tn buy it. As against that we have the well-known fact that the Maoris wanted £22,500 for their freehold interests, and the other well-known fact that Mr. Herrman Lewis held a mortgage for £14,000 which had been assigned to him by Flowers's trustees; so that the interest of Mr. Lewis as mortgagee and that of the Natives amounted to £36,500? —Yes; and you could not buy the land for double that amount to-day. 47. I am speaking of the facts as they stood at the time. The report of the Government's own officers was that it could not go beyond £35,000? —Does Mr. Ngata suggest that the Government never go beyond the amount indicated by their own officers when they purchase land ? 48. Sometimes they do. The papers will probably show that they stretch a point by adding a few thousands in order to make a deal?—l am not a land-speculator, but if I were I should be very glad indeed to have the block at £50,000. 49. Let us deal with the next aspect —the interest of the Native owners. You have asked this question, among others, in the report of your speech : " Why was not a sufficient area reserved for the Native people? Not a single acre was so reserved." Do you mean to suggest that these people are landless? —Not at all. Ido not know; they may be for anything I know to the con-

5