Hon. Sir D. 223. Had this Tairua block passed through P-I think the Tairua was one of the blocks.
McLean. 224. The Chairman.] Was it a gold field at the time P-It was supposed to be auriferous.
225. Was it proclaimed ?-I cannot recollect ; the Proclamation will show.
18th Aug„ 1875. 226. diEr. Rolleston.] I understand that these timber leases, or a large portion of them, were stated to be invalid by Mr. Mackay's report P-One or two wore invalid through some informality-through the declaration of the interpreter not being to it.
But surely they were all invalid that that arrangement would apply to. Mr. Mackay would have no occasion to say to the Government "You must respect these arrangements," if they had a legal title P-The Government uniformly respect all equitable titles that Europeans have from the 'Natives, in the shape of timber leases or other rights.
•
The Chairman.] Who settled the equitable nature of the title P-In these cases Mr. Mackay was himself the party who had been purchasing timber for Europeans, and his understanding with Mr. Ormond is laid down specifically and clearly in the report before the Committee, wherein he recites a number of cases, and takes employment from the Government only on the understanding that these are respected. •
Mr. Rolleston.] Then we come this ; that it would be a great advantage to the holders of these questionable leases that the Government should buy the land, and practically validate them ?- I do not consider that there was any great advantage. They had an equitable right, out of which they could not be disturbed.
They had no legal right ?-They had, in most instances, on lands that had passed through the Native Land Court. Lands which had not passed would not be in the same position.
The Chairman.-I proposed to the Government this plan : that their agents should buy the whole block of land from the Natives in the first place, and that then, in open Court, all equitable claims of Europeans should be determined in reference to that .particular block, instead of giving to a private individual-to one individual-the power of determining and settling with the people who claimed P-Your proposal was that there should be a Court of inquiry.
What objection was there to that plan P-I do not know of any objection. I believe it would be a good suggestion to have a Court of inquiry.
Why was my proposal not replied to P-I• cannot answer that question ; I think you made the suggestion to the Colonial Secretary. I cannot answer as, to any correspondence between you.
Mr. Thomson] I wish to ask whether the Government has any information as to whether the leases granted by the Natives to those persons were for the same areas of land as the leases sub. sequently confirmed by the Government ? I have heard something about these leases extending over larger areas P-I am not aware of any such case.
The Chairman.] Have the Government in their possession, in reference to the Tairua block, any document which shows what was the area of the original timber leases from the Natives to the proprietors who claim a lease from the Crown ?-In reference to Tairua particularly, I could not answer that question without looking up the documents, and seeing whether there is any discrepancy between the leases. I will see if there are any documents on the subject.
Mr. Sheehan.] Do you know whether this Waiharakeke was inside the proclaimed boundary or not P-It was outside the boundary of the block Mr. Ormond instructed Mr. Mackay to negotiate.
If it were within the boundary of the Proclamation, there would be no occasion for making any arrangement with Mr. Russell P-No, the Government would have the whole control of the matter.
The Chairman.] Was any public notification issued that this privilege had been given to Mr. Russell, in order that the rest of the Queen's subjects that could might come in and claim a similar privilege P-I am not aware of any except the Proclamation. I am not aware of any other notice.
Then it was an individual privilege P-It was a public matter. I do not think it was
i
intended as an individual advantage. Every individual that had rights would be on the same footing.
Were they informed of it P---I cannot say whether they were informed of it or not.
Mr. Sheehan.] Of course, under the provisions of the 75th section of the Native Lands Act of 1865, all transactions for the acquisition of Native land, before going through the Court, are null and void P-Yes, they are null and void.
I 'take it for granted that there can be no equitable interest which has been declared null and void by statute ?-Unless the land had passed through the Court. If it had done so, it would, of course, be a legal title. A great number of blocks down there had passed through the Court.
FRIDAY, 20TE Annus; 1875.
Mr. H. T. alma, Under Secretary for Native Affairs, examined on oath.
Mr. Clark. Witness deposed: I have brought the papers referring to Hungahunga and Waiharakeke.
Mr. .Rolleston.] I want to understand from Mr. Clarke what is the position of the Native • 20th Aug., 1875. Purchase Department in relation to the permanent head of the Native Department P-In what respect do you mean ?
Does all correspondence pass through the Under Secretary's hands ?-It does.
All correspondence of every kind with regard to land purchase P-Yes ; the Native Land Purchase Department is considered a branch of the Native Secretary's Department.
The Chairman.] Are you in charge of that branch ?-I am supposed to be in charge of both of them.
11fr. Rolleston.] These are the whole papers with regard to this transaction?-That is a complete file of the Hungahunga and Waiharakeke papers.
Do the printed papers of the Tairua block contain the whole of the correspondence in the department P-Everything. If there are any not there, they are simply matters of routine. The principal matters are there.
Do the papers laid on the table with regard to Mr. Brissenden contain the whole of the correspondence ?-The whole, except some unimportant papers.
67