Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

The Pamphlet Collection of Sir Robert Stout: Volume 23

Mr. A. F. Halcombe examined

Mr. A. F. Halcombe examined.

* * * * *

Q. On what ground was Mr. Pearce's proposal refused in 1871?

A. On two or three grounds. I was the person who chiefly moved page 11 in opposition to the matter being then dealt with. The reasons were in the first place, that we were not then in actual possession of the block; next, that the Province derived no actual benefit from a declaration of our possession; and the third reason was that the Province was then exceedingly poor and could not pay its police and other officers, and we could not therefore go into questions of that kind. * * *

Q. Mr. Dignan.—Supposing you did remain in office, and the Provincial Council to meet, would you consider yourself bound to bring it forward?

A. Most decidedly. I should have considered I was bound in honor to bring it forward, because I consider the Government was pledged to do so.

Q. Did you think the claim was of such a nature that the Council would sanction it?

A. I have no doubt it would.

Q. Was the award to be in land or cash?

A. The proposal was to give it in cash.

* * * At the time we were absolutely unable to pay

our policemen, and the question was whether or not we should have to throw ourselves into the hands of the General Government. We felt under these circumstances that we had no right to give way to those claims which partook of the nature of a gratuity, and that we had no right to give away any land or money while we were unable to pay our policemen and meet those pressing claims upon us. We felt the matter might just as well be delayed for a year or two, and that the claim would come with better grace from Dr. Buller .when we were actually in bonâ fide possession of the land. Our poverty, and the fact that we were not in quiet and perfect possession of the land, were the reasons why we considered the claim should be delayed.

Q. Did you regard this in the light of a gratuity or a liability?

A. Partly in the one way and partly in the other. Originally it was a gratuity, but as it had been placed on the Estimates and was only delayed, we came to the conclusion that it was a liability. * * *

Q. The Chairman.—Were you aware, when a member of the Government, that any promise was made by Dr. Featherston?

A. Dr. Featherston always led me to believe that he had made a promise to Dr. Buller. * * *

page 12

Q. It does not appear that Dr. Buller has completed the peaceable purchase of that block?

A. I don't think that is fair. He bought the land from persons declared by repeated sittings of the Native Lands Court to be the real owners. Others who were declared not to be owners raised questions and a row and had to be bought off. But Dr. Buller bought from the persons who were declared by two special sittings of the Native Lands Court to be the owners.

Q. Had those persons bought off by the Government no claim whatever?

A. So it was decided by the sittings of the Native Lands Court. * *