1.--3 A.

144

[JOSHUA JONES.

property—he had not it to put in—some £71,000 passed through Findlay- and Dalziell's hands. Another feature of the case comes in here. Dr. Findlay denies blankly that he ever blocked the inquiry recommended by the Legislative Council Committee of 1908 (Hansard for 1910, page 598, and Report of the A to L Petitions Committee for 1910, page 16), xvhereas Mr. Treadwell's letter o'' the 29th October, 1908, written immediately after the Committee reported and the refusal by Dr. Findlay, states (A to L Committee's Report, page 19), "The writer several times saw the Attorney-General xvith reference to the matter, and a perfectly plain intimation was given to him by Dr. Findlay that the Covernment xvould not appoint a Commission to deal xvith or investigate the petition." If Mr. Treadwell is to be believed, here is clear evidence that Dr. Findlay blocked the inquiry. At this time Mr. Treadwell had no reason for stating xvhat xvas not true. In another place (Hansard, 1910, page 598), and in London Truth (7th June, 1911, page 1191— letter of Paines and Co.), Dr. Findlay states that he supported the motion for' setting up the Commission, but the Solicitor-General advised that no Commission could be set up in the face of the Ohinemuri decision. Now, my contention is that Dr. Findlay- refused the inquiry on the 7th October, 1908, and the Ohinemuri decision had not been given until May, 1909. But this decision had no bearing on the Mokau case. The laxv xvas the same when the Commission of 1888 sat on this case as in May, 1909. Irrespective of all this, however, if the Government had desired to have an open inquiry, the Premier could have obtained poxver, if necessary, as was pointed out in the House by honourable members on the 15th November, 1910. These points are only quoted to show that it was after an offer had reached me from London by cable in April, 1910— an offer to purchase the property —that Dr. Findlay voted for the inquiry, if he did at all— when the Government knexv of the offer, when Sir Joseph Ward and the Hon. Mr. Carroll agreed xvith me respecting the purchase, as I stated before the Committee some xveeks ago; and I believe that Dr. Findlay xvas the stumbling-block to the deal being carried out. It is very remarkable that the cable arrived in Wellington on the 11th April, 1910, and the Government (Sir Joseph Ward) knew of it on the 22nd and agreed to purchase, and Mr. Carroll a few days later. If you xvill refer to the Land Transfer Register xvhich is before you you will note that the mortgages of Findlay and Dalziell and T. G. Macarthy xvere effected on the 2nd May. This may have been a coincidence, but I am inclined to the belief that it was the act of Dr. Findlay, consequent upon the London cable offering to purchase, to rush the mortgages of his firm and T. G. Macarthy. It xvas doubtless worked by Orr. I believe it xvas to block the Government purchase that he (Finday) voted for the Royal Commission, which xvould create delay, and enable the deal to be effected by Dr. Findlay's side, as has been done. You will note from the papers of the 13th May that a Commission to inquire into Mokau lands had been decided on, and the negotiations bxDr. Findlay's client (Lewis) were in operation then. I think I have just cause of complaint as to the treatment I received over the Order in Council affair. The Ato L Committee recommended that in any mutual understanding regarding the dealings with these lands my claims to equitable consideration should be clearly defined, thus showing that the Committee considered I had claims. Well, the mutual understanding must have been arrived at when it was decided to issue the Order in Council. I had written to the Native Minister and to the President of the Maori Land Board in 1910, and to the Hon. Mr. Carroll as recently as the 11th March, 1911, requesting information of any intended dealings xvith these lands, and pointing out that no Gazettt or official papers ever reached me or my neighbourhood; but no reply came. On the 11th March. 1911, I wrote, and registered on the 15th, at Awakino, a letter to the President of the Maori Land Board, xvhich he should have received on the 17th. I did not receive a reply until after the whole transaction had been completed, xvhen I received a letter from Mr. Bowler, dated the 25th, stating that the business had been completed on the previous day. This looked to me to be a trick. When Parliament closed on the 3rd December 1 endeavoured to see the Prime Minister, but without success. On the Bth, however, as he was leaving for Rotorua, he shook hands xvith me, expressed regret that he had not been able to see me, and requested that T should come and see him on his return from Rotorua, and he would certainly fix me up; but he never mentioned that he had, with Dr. Findlay and Mr. Carroll, agreed on the sth that the Order in Council should be issued. On his return I came to Wellington, but could not see him. He made appointments, but* did not keep them. On the 25th January, 1911, I informed his secretary that I could not understand such treatment. He xx-ent in to the Premier, and returned saving that the Premier xvould see me. I saw the Premier, and put a Tetter of that date in his hands, informing him, among other things, that T xvould prefer he would not make appointments unless he kept them. He informed me that he could not buy the freehold as he had undertaken to do and deal xvith me as per Mr. Treadwell's letter of 22nd June (Mr. Treadwell had informed me that he had refused to do so because I had spoken to an Opposition member xvho had brought the matter before the House); neither could he set up an inquiry as recommended by the Committee of 1908, because the Solicitor-General had advised him that he could not legally- do either. I expressed the belief that the Solicitor-General had advised him wrongly and in the interests of Dr. Findlay, to xx-hom he owed his appointment, and I requested Sir Joseph to obtain independent opinion on both points from counsel outside the Government. He replied that he xvould not do so —that he xx-ould only act on Mr. Salmond's advice. He did not inform me that he had assented to the Order in Council. In February Mr. Okey wrote to Sir Joseph urging him. for the credit of the Dominion, both here and in England, to settle this matter. The reply received by Mr. Okey was signed by the private secretary, Mr. Crocott ; it was dated the 6th March—three days after the Premier and Dr. Findlay had left the Dominion —and stated that the Premier had sent the matter to the Acting-Premier to deal with. A strange part of the matter is that Mr. Okey did not receive the letter until the 17th, althouuh lie ought to have received it on the 7th. He received it txvo days after the Governor had signed the Order in Council. I am of the belief that there was some trickery about these letters. The Order in Council appears to hax-e been