TIMBER-BEARING LANDS

Evening Post, Volume CV, Issue 141, 15 June 1923, Page 6

TIMBER-BEARING LANDS

TAUPO-PUTARURU RAILWAY

TO TIB IDITOR, Sir,—An apology is due to you for the inordinate length this correspondence has reached. I have endeavoured to confine the issue to the points of complaint raised at the recent meeting convened by the Taupo-Putarum Railway District Board at Wellington. I have pointedly suggested that Mr. Dalziell's attitude that his company has no desire to sell the railway is a mere pose. ,In this view there is now the added corroboration that Mr. Dalziell, when confronted with a quotation out of his own mouth, clearly showing that bis. company was virtually on its knees to the Government, praying that the railway be taken over, he (Mr. Dalziell) now claims that his then attitude was a mere pose adopted for political reasons! In the face of his admission, what weight can now be given to his protestations that his company does not now desire, and never has desired, to sell its railway? It is clear, also, from Mr. Dalziell's letter that his company is desirous of obtaining for its railway more than it is worth, although he has not had the courage to answer the specific question put to him on thi? head. He desires to get this excess price at the expense of someone, and apparently he is not particular who it jb, whether it be the settler, the timber owners, or the Government. According to Mr. Dalziell, if A., 8., and C. sign a document providing that A. and B. are to pay C. for a railway by means of a royalty on sawn timber, it is proper without consulting A. or B. that the solicitor whose duty it is to protect the interests of all parties in framing the legislation to enable such agreement to be carried into effect may so frame the legislation as to enable "C. to get the royalty on " timber bearing lands." The basis of the agreement signed was " sawn limber," but now Mr. Dalziell says this is a mere suggestion and .the " question whether the proposed agreement should be Eecured on the lands of the timber owners is still to, be discussed." ' Mr. Dalziell made "an agreement that royalty was to be on sawn timber; now he wants to repudiate that arrangement and introduce another, and he has the temerity to add that without a security on the land the timber owners cannot obtain the benefits of the agreement. This is repudiation pure and simple. Does Mr. Dalziell think that after conduct of this sort anyone can take anything he says seriously? I am aniazed at his statement that the settlers will get reduced transport' rate, and will be under no obligation to take the risks of running the line. At the present rates charged the line shows a loss. Reducing the ratos cannot turn a loss into a profit. Mr. Dalziell knows quite well that if there is a loss, that loss has to be found by rate? on the lands in_ the whole of the Taupo-Putaruru railway district; an agreement by the company to foot the loss for a while is a mere postponement of the evil day. Who, then, but the unfortunate settlers of that district is going to be landed with that loss? Assuming, notwithstanding Mr. Dalziell's suggested repudiation of the arrangement, that the proposed cost of,, the railway—viz., £167,000 —is found out of Eawn timber, there remains also the cost of putting the railway into a condition conformable to Government standards. This will, according to Taupo Tramway Commission (p. 14), cost £565,----000. The interest and sinking fund for thiß little extra on the cost will all have to be found by the settlers out of rates. At say, 5 per cent, interest and 1 per cent, sinking fund, the burden on the Taupo-Pataruru settlers on this extrawill amount to £33,900 per annum. There are only about 250 settlers, so that it will §ost them on an average £135 per head per annum. Mr. Dalziell suggests that the grievance my clients. have against-his company is that his company has refused to carry their timber. My clients have never made any request for timber to be carried. No complaint of any sort or kind has ever been made by them on this head. But, seeing that Mr. Dalziell has raised this point, it may be worth while noting that his company is bound under Order-in-Council to carry goods at certain specified rates. It admittedly is refusing to do so, and claims, that :l is doing so under legal advice. Mr. Dalziell in his first communication to the Press'claimed that it was so doing under advice given by Mr. Skerrett and Sir John Findlay. Their opinion is printed at page 25 of the report of Taupo Lands Commission. The effect of that opinion is that, although the Order-in-Gouncil is enforceable while it exists, it is at any time open to the company to abandon all use of its privileges under the Order-in-Council. I have carefully read this opinion, and not only do I not find any authority for Mr. Dalziell's statement that the company is free to refuse to carry timber or other produce, but, on the contrary, the opinion states: "It would seem that under the terms of the Order-in-Council, unless the company carry out its obligations, it is liable at the option of the Governor to revocation of its orders, or a monetary penalty for each day during which default continues." If, therefore, it ever became necessary for my clients to call upon the company to carry timber at Order-in,-Council .rates, my clients would only have to report to the Government the breach by the company of its' duty under the Order-in-Council, and Mr. Dalziell's company would' then find itself in the position that it woujd either have to abandon the whole of its rightß under the QrderanCouncil, or find itself subject to the penalties provided by the Order-in-Council. As previously mentioned by me, the company has made use of its alleged freedom to refuse to carry goods at Order-in-Council rates as a means to foment an agitation by the settlers for the. Government to acquire the line. But this " bluff " on the part of the company has no effect on my clients, and Mr. Dalziell need not delude himself that it causes them any concern. —I am, etc., 1 A. W. BLAIR. 13th June.