The Press. THURSDAY, JANUARY 27, 1898. THE STORY OF AN AKAROA RESERVE.

Press, Volume LV, Issue 9946, 27 January 1898, Page 4

The Press. THURSDAY, JANUARY 27, 1898. THE STORY OF AN AKAROA RESERVE.

We have before had occasion to refer to that monstrous measure introduced ,by the Government on the last day of the last session—the "Reserves, Endowments and Grown and Native Lands Exchange, Sale, Disposal and Enabling Bill." Mr. Rovusstas, it will be remembered, called it "a Congeries of Bills." Had he termed it " a congeries of jobs," the phrase would have been equally appropriate. We have . already explained bow one clause proposed to take away a. reserve belou?ing to th« lαMfee Soul. w It

appears that another olwse really transformed the Parliament into a debt-collecting agency, the Akaroa County Council being presented with the alternative of either paying £87 16s " to such person or persons as the Governor directs" or else being deprived of a reserve often acres, No. 1259, Block XIV., Pigeon Bay District. Whether the Akaroa County Council really owed this n?oney we cannot undertake to say. The Government hold that the reserve was vested in the County Couucil, subject to the latter undertaking to pay £87 16s to the then lessee, Mr. Thomas Bkooks, as. compensation for improvements. The Council, as we understand, say that in September, 1892, when they originally applied for the reserve, they did so subject to the £37 16s being paid, but that nothing came of it at that time, and in 1895, when they renewed the application and the reserve was actually vested in the Council, nothing was said about any charge having to be paid. What followed may best be stated in the words of the Chairman of the County Council, in a speech which he made at the last meeting of that body. Mr. Anson said:— "In January, 1895, Mr Brooks waited on the Council and informed us he was the then leaaee of the reserve, and claimed £37 16s from the Council as compensation for eviction and improvements. He was informed the Council had no official knowledge as to his rights in the matter, and could only deal with the Land Board. It was incidentally mentioned that Brooks, having gone through the Bankruptcy Court recently, the Council could not pay him any moneys without first referring to the Official Assignee. In November, 1895, therefore, we received a letter from Mr John Joyce, M.H.R., threatening on behalf of Brooks to get the reserve taken away from us unless this money was paid, and enclosing a certificate from the Official Assignee relinquishing his claim to any monetary interest Mr Brooks might have in the reserve. In reply to our enquiries, the Official Assignee informed us .that this certificate had been given only after obtaining an assurance from the Land Office that Brooks had absolutely no interest in or claim on the reserve; that Brooks had himself sworn in his bankruptcy examination that thirty shillings, estimated value of an iron engine shed, was the extent of his interest, and instructed the Council, despite the certificate, to pay no money to Mr Brooks without first communicating with him. At the same time the Land Office told us that Air Brooks on- the 23rd March, 1895, was advised that his claim could iiot be recognised, and copies of the correspondence were forwarded to our member with a request that he would pro. 1 tect the county ratepayers' iutore3ts against any attempt at upsetting our title to the reserve or of enforcing payment of money which the Land Office told us was not due, to a man whom the Official Assignee warned us was not entitled to receive it. Since this time, and regardless of the above facts, we have repeatedly received letters from the Minister of Lands ordering us to pay the £37,. 16s to Mr Brooks, and threatening to take this reserve away from us in default." This threat was no brutwn fidmen, a.9 the clause in the Reserves, &c., ' Enabling Bill sufficiently showed. The* County Council, to avoid losing the reserve, gave Mr. Montgomery, M.H.8., a cheque for £87 16s to pay over if he should think fit. The Bill, as our readers are aware, was thrown out bodily, but it appears that previous to this Mr. Montgomery had handed over the cheque to Mr. T. E. Taylor, M.H.R., as agent lor Mr. Bbooks. In a letter to Mr. Taylob, M.H.R., Mr. Montgomery said:— " I have come to the conclusion that while Mr Brooks has no legal claim against the Government or the Council he was recognised as being equitably entitled to the value of his improvements about the year 1092, and the same equitable claim should hold good against the Council as against the Government. With the question of his bankruptcy I have nothing to do since the Official Assignee has disclaimed all rights in. this matter. I have, therefore, decided to giy the money in question to you as Mr rooks' agent, to be paid to him on his signing the enclosed receipt and acknowledgment, but not otherwise." We do not know, as we have said, how far Mr. Montgomery was justified in deciding that Mr. Bbooks had an equitable claim against the Council. We certainly do not see bow his statement as to the Official Assignee's disclaimer is to be reconciled with Mr. Arson's version of this portion of the case. What we do say is that Mr. Bbooks might have had the afcrougesfc claim in the world against the Council, but unless he had had the ear of members of the "right colour " he would never have got the Ministry of the day to bring to bear the ponderous machinery of an Act of * Parliament in his behalf. He would have been left to get his remedy, if any, from the law courts. We do not think that Parliament should be made use of in this way. It is another attempt on the part of the Minister of Lands to make Parliament usurp the functions of the law courts. How could Parliament, on the last day of the session, with a multitude of other things to be done, go carefully and judicially into the question whether the Akaroa County Council did or did not owe Mr. Bbooks £87 16s? The idea is pre-, posterotts. It is fortunate the Bill was thrown out; it is a scand»l that it was ever brought forward.