JOSHUA JONES.I

143

I.—3a.

transaction lAt a later dat.— Hansard for 1910, page 597—Dr. Findlay professes to know nothing of the case or the business that goes on in his firm's office; that he' has no interest, direct or indirect, in xvhat transpires there; yet he was a co-mortgagee of the property at the time, and if we turn back to what he said in reply to Mr. McCardle in 1908 it is clear that he knew all about it. Be says, "It would take the Hon. Mr. McCardle himself, or any one else, more than a whole afternoon to even outline the history of this matter, and if it were outlined it would then be seen that Mr. Jones's claim was not as clear and plain as the Hon. Mr. McCardle thought it to be. Personally he was opposed to Parliament interfering in cases of this kind." It xvill be noted that in his speech here, and in 1910, amounting to some four or five columns, he is purely the advocate, virtually, in breach of the Standing Orders, of his firm's client. Berrman Lewis:' and not only this, but in defiance of his chief, who, as doubtless he was well aware, had recommended me to appeal to Parliament. A petition had been presented by me to the Council -the House being too pressed with work —praying I'm inquiry. The Committee were. I was informed, unanimous in recommending the Government to set up inquiry by Royal Commission or other competent tribunal, and in the meantime to at once take steps to protect the property from further dealings. This passed the Council without discussion. On the 7th October, 1908—the day the Committee reported—l instructed Mr. Treadwell to see the Attorney-General and get him to set up the inquiry at once. 1 should say that the Committee would have completed the inquiry, but Parliament was about separating for the general elections so they told me. Mr. Treadwell saw Dr. Findlay and informed me that he had refused the inquiry for the reason that other Commissions that had been set up had not reported as the Government expected, and this one, if appointed, might act likewise. He did not say a word about the Meikle case, as stated by Dalziell, at their interview. But he put forward terms on behalf of Berrman Lexvis—very onerous terms —and told him to go to Dalziell and get the terms put into proper form on paper, and both were to go and see him (Dr. Findlay) when this was done. This took three or four days, and when it was done I know that Mr. Treadwell and Mr. Dalziell went to see Dr. Findlay together. I saw them going. This is my version of how the matter came off, and not as Dalziell put it in his evidence. It took me by surprise when Mr. Treadwell returned to me on the 7th, after seeing Dr. Findlay, and stated that the firm of Findlay and Dalziell xvere the solicitors for Berrman Lewis in the business, and so xvas Mr. Treadwell surprised. But it came back to my memory that Lewis had informed me that he had engaged this firm beforehand for this special case in the belief that Dr. Findlay could create a good title. To go back to the inquiry before the Council Committee in September, 1908: Lewis gave evidence. In reply to the Charinian (Mr. Jenkinson), he said that he had paid no money on the purchase for the reason that he had no good title; that he or some one else would pay when he dill get a title. This evidence is not now in the depositions, although I was careful to note the shorthand-writer take it down tit the time. Mr. Stoxve informed me a few months ago that he could not account for this. He had made inquiries and found that it was a shorthand-writer in the Mines Department xvho took the evidence, but the notebook was not now available. 1 was not surprised at this. Dr. Findlay could not and did not set up the inquiry. I am satisfied, however, that if he had brought the matter before Cabinet the inquiry would have taken place. I base this reliance on the assurance of Sir Joseph Ward a few weeks previously. T think Mr. Treadwell did not like to go behind Dr. Findlay to Sir Joseph to press for the inquiry. The terms were so onerous and in any ease uncertain that nothing came of them. I also maintained that, according to the English Court order. I ought to be able to recover the property. About the beginning of Xovember, 1908, 1 met the Hon. Mr. Bigg, who had presented my petition, and showed him the terms that Dr. Findlay- had demanded from Mr. Treadxvell. He went with me upstairs and asked Mr. Treadxvell if these xvere really the terms demanded by Dr. Findlay or his firm. Mr. Treadwell replied. Yes, they were. Mr. Rigg was astonished, and wrote to the Premier on the subject. On the sth November Mr. Dalziell called on Mr. Treadwell and informed him that, as Mr. Rigg had written to the Premier, the AttorneyGeneral had decided to send the matter to the Stout Commission —as Mr. Treadwell understood, to my damage. On the 6th Mr. Treadwell informed me of this, and on the 7th T xvrote him a letter on the subject, xvhich letter I produced before the Committee of T9lO, and asked the Chairman to have it printed* with the other documents; but he carefully omitted to do so, as he did with respect to another important paper. I now produce a copy of this letter, and xvill put it in. I am satisliod. notwithstanding the date, &c, that Dalziell affixes to some letter or other, that the Stout-Palmer inquiry; was the outcome of the threat that Mr. Dalziell conveyed from Dr. Findlay to Mr. Treadxvell The Stout-Ngata Commission had completed its xvork and became disbanded, and a new Commission was issued to Sir Robert Stout and Mr. Jackson Palmer on the 23rd January, 1909. who reported on the 4th March. The Mokau case xvas the only one inquired into by this Commission, with a fexv makeweight cases of Registrar's duty to give a colour of legitimacy to the Commission, xvhich I maintain had no authority to inquire into these lands for any purpose xvhatever, they being, for all purposes, under the jurisdiction of the Xative I.em! ami Supreme Courts. Even Mr. Dalziell, Dr. Findlay's partner, has appeared before this Committee and stated the belief that the Commission had no legal standing to inquire into the Mokau case; and Sir J. Carroll, with Mr. Herries. quotes other opinions that this Stout-Palmer Commission had no legal authority in the premises. The so-called inquiry xvas held unknown to me. I did not know of it until some weeks after it was over, when I at once wrote to Sir Joseph Ward remonstrating, but got no satisfaction. It surely must be a matter of great pride to the Chief Justice, the Native Land Court Chief Judge, and the Minister of Justice of the Dominion to prompt these Natives to repudiate an agreement made with one who had befriended their ancestors and never got a penny out of them—to prompt them to repudiate the agreement; for neeuniarv gain to some persons. Tt has been proved before this Commission that some £56,000 was netted before an acre has been sold, and according to Lewis, who never put a penny into the