THE NEW ZEALAND GAZETTE. 817

moieties, and is one therefore, as I believe and am advised, which entitles to the franchise, if the
freehold is of sufficient value. In the test case decided by Mr. Lawlor, the freehold was of
sufficient value to satisfy the requirements of clause 7 of the Constitution Act. Mr. Lawlor's
decision appears therefore to have been unsound, and consequently objections founded upon it
were unsound also. But it has to be specially remarked that only a small proportion of the
claims preferred by Maoris and half-castes during the registration period of 1878, I find,
from positive evidence from official records, that no less than 213 are based merely on certificates
of title under the Native Land Act, 97 claims being actually made on a single tribal
grant. Making the necessary deduction, I believe the number entitled to the franchise on the
freehold qualification to be under 50. Some of these number possess the additional qualification
of a sufficient household, and outside of these there are about 20 who also possess a sufficient
household qualification, and who, having
claimed in respect of it, are entitled to be on the roll. Assuming, then, that the actual qualifi-
cations described in the claims preferred were the sole subject for consideration, of the 373
claims preferred in 1878, 70 ought to have been allowed, and the
remainder disallowed. But when the mode is considered in which the claims were got up or
prepared, it will be seen that the number of valid claims preferred in 1878 must be still further
reduced indefinitely.

I proceed now to other features of the inquiry, and, as it appears to me that in a limited
sense some of the parties involved are practically placed on their trial, I need not hesitate to refer
to the personal motives and actions of persons connected with it.

I have already pointed out that Mr. Lundon's apparent object in getting up the Maori
claims was to render the electoral roll more favourable to himself. With that object in view, it
is clear from his own evidence that the questions of whether the claimants were qualified, or
whether they signed the claims, or whether the claims were duly attested, were matters of com-
plete indifference to him so long as the supreme object was gained. Mr. Lundon has himself
permitted a Native in his presence to sign the names of twenty absent persons to electoral claims,
and has caused the forms so prepared to be taken away to a distance to be signed by another
person as attesting witness. Very many of the claims preferred were certainly never signed by
the persons purporting to have signed them, and false attestation has been the rule, not the
exception. Raneira Warerau's name appears as the attesting witness on 203 of the claims made
in 1878, and he admitted in evidence that he had not seen more than ten of the claimants sign
their names. Isaac Williamson is the attesting witness to ninety-nine claims, and he admitted
in evidence that not more than five or six had signed in his presence. In addition to this,
Williamson made the extraordinary statement that he had authorized another person to sign his
(Williamson's) name as attesting witness because he was too busy to travel around for the purpose
upon which I feel that it would be useless to
dwell, I regret to have to say that I consider the official conduct of the late Registration Officer,
Mr. Williams, open to grave censure. Many of the disclosures elicited by this inquiry, and
unknown to Mr. Williams, and were not indi-
cated in his formal objection. His reasons, I think, must be sought elsewhere. The wholesale
objections made by him in his official capacity, and which certainly included names which ought
not to have been objected to, were made, as it seems to me, on very inadequate information. Mr.
Williams is an excellent Maori scholar; he has resided in his district for more than forty years.
Yet his personal knowledge on which his objections were founded only extended to twenty-two
names out of the total number objected to. In all other cases he seems to have relied almost
absolutely on general statements by the Resident Magistrates of Hokianga and Mongonui
respectively, that the claimants were not entitled to a vote. Mr. Williams in his evidence
repeatedly and deliberately says, in speaking of his objections, "I objected to all names I had a
doubt upon." This is by no means my conception of the duty of a Registration Officer in this
respect. Where he objects he ought, I think, to have no doubt at all. For it must be remem-
bered that the burden of proof lies on the person objected to, who, moreover, has no claim for
costs against the Registration Officer in case he establishes his right to the franchise. Practically
these grave warrants do not appear, and the objection therefore, if wrongfully made,
amounts to disfranchisement. The extreme view which Mr. Williams took of his duty as Regis-
tration Officer must, I think, have grown up out of the political situation which I have already
described. Moreover, there is no doubt that many names were left on the roll of persons whose
qualifications were similar to those objected to, and it happens that the persons so left on the roll
resided for the most part in districts over which the influence of Mr. Williams's family might be sup-
posed to extend. It is not surprising, therefore, that a suspicion of bias should be excited in the
minds of the political opponents of Mr. Williams's family. I have already intimated, the infor-
mation on which Mr. Williams founded his objections was derived in great part from Mr. Von
Stürmer, the Resident Magistrate of Hokianga, and Mr. White, the late Resident Magistrate of
Mongonui. In the case of Mr. Von Stürmer, the memorandum containing the information was not
produced, but Mr. White's memorandum was read in evidence by Mr. Williams on the 6th of
March, and I beg to refer your Excellency to it. I have no hesitation in saying that it was not a