155

I.- 3a

Mr. R. Price-Williams, M.1.C.E., 32 Victoria Street, Westminster, says: — The sample of Mokau coal appears to be a good coal of semi-bituminous character, and will undoubtedly prove of great value in connection with iron and steel works. Mr. H. Curlett, a valuer in the Provincial District of Canterbury, New Zealand, writes of the Mokau coal: — The coal is of good quality—practically unlimited. The River Mokau runs up one side of the property, and vessels drawing 0 ft. to 8 ft. of water can discharge or load at the mines. The company holds eighteen independent reports on the great heat from burning and clean quality of the coal for household use, manufacturing and steamboat purposes. These reports are by persons of high standing in the colony, and may be seen at the company's offices. One of these reports is by Mr. Walter Stoddart, for many years chief engineer of ocean liners, who states : — It gives me great pleasure in certifying to the excellent steaming-qualities of the Mokau coal for the generation of steam. I have known the coal for several years, and can speak of its improving quality year by year. One great merit is the small quantity of clinker, which is easily removed from the firebars. We have been using the Mokau coal for the last seven months, and prefer it to any other tried, owing to its getting steam quickly in comparison with other coal — Greyinouth, tor instance. I find that Mokau coal suits our purpose better, and is fully as economical.—Walter Stoddart, Engineer.

No. 9. Mokau, 29th January, 1911. Dear Sirs, — Re Mokau Case. At a meeting of owners interested in the Mokau-Mohakatino Block, held at Mokau on the January, 1911, several business was discussed at this meeting concerning the Mokau case. Il was decided at this meeting by the assembled owners that Tuiti Macdonald be withdrawn from the list of names as one of the leaders and consulting members for us, and that Wetini Paneta and Tauhia Tewiata be included in the list of leaders and consulting members for us. The following have been chosen to represent the Natives re Mokau case : K. H. Hardy, Aterea Ahiwaka, Pairoroku Rikihana, Wetini Paneta, Tauhia Tewiata. We are, ifcc, Te Oro Watihi. Bell, Gully, Bell, and Myers, solicitors, Wellington. Tatana te Awaroa. (Keceived 6th February, 1911.)

No. 10. 13th January, 1911. Sir, — Mokau-Mohakatino Block No. 1. We have the honour to inform you that we are instructed by a number of the owners of the several subdivisions of this block to take proceedings to have the various leases declared to be invalid or forfeited for breach of covenant. Our clients arc, we believe, a majority of the owners, and are opposed to the proposed sale of the freehold to Mr. Lewis. They desire that Mr. H. D. Bell, K.C., should attend on their behalf the meeting of assembled owners convened by your Board, which, as we understand, was adjourned until a day to be fixed by you. Air. Bell hopes that it may be convenient to you to convene the meeting either before the end of the present month or in the hist week of February, as after that time he will be engaged at the .sitting of the Supreme Court. * We should lie obliged by your early reply. We have, &c, Bell, Gully, Bell, and Myers. The President. Waikato-Maniapoto District Maori Land Board, Auckland.

No. 11. Kindly state if you wish me to make any public pronouncement of nr. side of the question. — E.H.H. No. I don't want to be brought into the matter further unless I am forced to defend myself.—H.D.B.

Memo, for H. D. Bell, Esq., Wellington. 22nd July, 1911. I plage on record the fact that I acquiesced in your absence from the second meeting of assembled owners re Mokau —first, because T judged from your telegrams that you were hindered by business from being present, unless ordered to be present ; second, the result of the meeting of assembled owner:-; justified my acquiescence, because the applicants for the purchase of Mokau (Dalziell and Co.) did not succeed in winning their case. !t was not till after the second Court that Dalziell learnt the strength of his opponents represented by my party —namely, 77 per cent, of the whole. After the result, of No. 2 I understand that Macdonald notified the Court that an adjournment might be made with a view to the consideration by the owners of some arrangement that