I.—3a.

134

[t. w. fisher.

35. What is the area of that block'/ —I think it is something under 2,000 acres. 36. Mr. fferries.] 'Mr. Bowler said thai he had instructions from the Department to call the first meeting of assembled owners?—He had instructions through the Department. •'i7. From the Native Minister/ —Yes. 38. Is it usual for the Native Minister to instruct the President of any Maori Land Board to call meetings of assembled owners?- Yes. it is done in lmmy cases. 39. Where the Crown is not interested?—No; it is mostly where the Crown is interested. 1 cannot say I know of a rase where the Minister lias done it in a private transaction. 40. This is the only case you know of I—Yes,1 — Yes, as far as I can remember. 11. What wa.s the Valuer-General's certificate that you alluded to, with reference to the Order in Council?— When the meeting was first called—-that is. one held mi the 6th. January— the owners' interest at thai time was assessed at £11,337 for the four blocks. That valuation was made in 1905, I believe, and the Board required a more up-to-date valuation. So the ValuerGeneral goi a special valuation made, which gave the owners' interest as £14,881. That included their interest in existing improvements. The owners' interest in the unimproved value was fixed at £13,733, and their interest in improvements al £1,148: total, £14,881. 42. Hon. Sir •/. Carroll.] That was the value of the Natives' interests over the "hole of the blocks?— Yes. 43. Mr. Herries.] That certificate was put in in order to enable the Board to see Chat the sale was in the interests of the Natives/ —To form some idea as to whether al price offered it was a desirable transaction. The position was this: that if the limitation-of-area provisions had not 'dine into the transaction, and there had been ten owners or less in the title, and those owners had executed a transfer, the Board could hardly have refused. Had the purchase-money only been £15,000, the Board could not have refused on grounds of value being inadequate. 44. Hon. Sir J. Carroll.] The Board lias a right to satisfy itself on the question of value? — That is so; but once the valuation is submitted to the Board by the A'aluer-General the Board has to accept that value. 45. Mr. Herries.] You told Mr. Ngata that you knew of no offer being made by the Natives in the Government, or by the Government to the Natives, with regard to purchasing the block? — That is so. 46. Do you know il' any money was paid in advance? We had it in evidence that money was paid in advance' In Pepene Eketonei 1 have paid nn money in advance on account of the Mokau Block. IT. Do you know i I' any money has been paid?—l am no! aware of any. 48. Mr. Massey.] Could any money have been paid without your knowledge?— Yes; Mr. Kensington could have paid it. 111. Mr. /ferries.] You are noi the Native Land Purchase Officer? —I am the officer controlling Native land purchases under the Act of 1909, but not with respect to transactions entered into prior to Ihe Act coming into force. It came into force on the 31st March, 1910. Mr. Kensington is still dealing with transactions entered into prior to that date. 50. You have no correspondence on the file with regard to any sale to the Government? —No, nothing of the kind evei came to my knowledge. 51. With regard to Mr. Bowler's position, is what you read the whole of the correspondence that \i>u had with regard to that /- That is all. I have the correspondence about paying over i!i,. money and matters healing on that, but this is all the correspondence hearing on Order in Council matter. 52. Your personal opinion seems to have been that it would lead to complications?—l knew there had been a considerable amount of litigation during the last twenty-five years over the blocks, ami I anticipated there probably would he in the future. As fai as the settling of the land was concerned. I saw no trouble in Mr. Howler taking the position. r>3. 'I , he matter was referred to the Solicitor-General for his opinion as to the legality, and not as to the desirability, of the arrangement I -That is so. 54. Ak \ou slill of opinion thai trouble may occur?—l am .satisfied now that the thing will work out all right. Of course. I could understand thai difficulties might arise with the Public Trustee acting as trustee, because the Board had to decide, practically, who should acquire the land- tlh' person who should take the title on its being sold ; and the Public Trustee could hardly hold the position as trustee subject to dictation by the Hoard. 55. Is Mr. Howler acting for the Board or for the purchasers of the land/—I take it Mr. Bowler's position is this: the land is being surveyed and mailed by the owners of the block, and Mi-. Bowler, who holds the estate in fee-simple, has to transfer it as instructed by the Board — that is. as to limitation of area, ami so on. It has to bo sold, as nearly as possible, under the provisions of the Act of 1909. .")(i. Supposing the interests of the company and the interests of the Hoard conflicted, what position would Mr. Howler be in?—l cannot see any possibility of conflict there, as far as the trustee is concerned. .")7 Supposing then- was conflict, what is your idea of the position that Mr. Bowler would be in? Would to stand by the Board or the company?—He would certainly stand by the Boan'l. 58. Yet in a sense he is the servant of the company, if he receives remuneration from it? — He would act under conditions of the trust ; he is holding the land under the trust. -,() |> )U | it Minis to me there is likely to be considerable conflict with regard to the interpretation of the trust! —If the law had allowed the Board to hold the trust, the Board would have received the remuneration instead of Mr. Bowler. 60. Do you think it is a desirable position to put an officer of the Government in? —In the present case 1 see no objection at all.