THE HARBOR BOARD ENDOWMENTS

Evening Star, Issue 12926, 24 September 1906, Page 4

THE HARBOR BOARD ENDOWMENTS

[From Ottr Parliamentary Reporter.]

WELLINGTON, September 24. The Hon. J. A. Millar to-day introduced \J Pl ! emier a deputation, consisting of about thirty, including members of the Le§isla.ture. He referred to the petitions, which were signed by 21,000- people, and said the deputation represented the Harbor Board, the City Council, the Taieii County—m fact, the whole of Otago. Mr H. Gourley (chairman of the Board) then introduced the

Hon. T. Fergus, who stated the facts of the case from the Harbor Board's view. He said that by a Provincial Government Ordinance of 1854 the first Provincial Counvi of n ota S° ha <* created harbor reserves. ■ 10lf 1^*1 Government approved of this in 1876. In 1874 the Provincial Council passed an Ordinance authorising the borrowing of £250,000, at 6 per cent. He read the prospectus, on the strength of winch tire London bondholders lent money. About this time the question of taking land for railway purposes was raised. Mr Fergus next read the correspondence which passed in 1875 in this connection between the Minister of Works and the Superintendent o] Otago, the original proposition being to take a strip tbree-quarteTs of a chain wide. He said the Superintendent had power to sell reclaimed land, but in deference to the wishes of the Minister agreed to let the latter have it at its market price. Mr Fergus mentioned that £21,000 odd was all the money received since the inception of the Harbor Board for lands taken. The Premier: I think you are mistaken. Tho Hon. T. Fergus continued: Taking away tho lands reduced the power of the Board to pay their interest on bonds, the security of which was endowments. He said tho Act of 1878 seemed to give the Government power to take from the provjnee lands which tho Government had never given them. The parliamentary records showed that it was never dreamt this was to apply to harbor boards. He complained that the Government, by simply paying the amount spent in reclamation, "could take tho land, and now they further claimed the power to take any portion of tho Board's lands. He said that the Board wished to reduce harbor dues, in order to compete with other port 6. They also required money to carry out the remainder of Sir John Coode'"!scheme, and had nothing to offer the Home lender as security except the lands, which had been vanishing at the will of the Government, and might continue to vanish. Changes of secretaries had contributed to tho matter being kept out of sight, but it was reopened when, in addition to the acres already taken, another 7£ acres were claimed, along with the right to acquire other portions. He referred to the cutting off of tho foreshore by closing streets, and tho fact that tho Government took lands from the Board, and finding them not required for their own purposes handed them over to other bodjes. Sir J. G. Ward : What bodies?

The Hon. T. Fergus: The. Art Gallery and Early Settlers. In ho asked for— L Access to the -wharves. 2. Thai land not required for railway purposes should be restored to the Board". 3. The Government having taken more than half the paying portions of the Board's reserves, had a perfect right to take over half the Board's debentures, and either pay interest on them or redeem them. Finally, Mr Fergus suggested that it would be a fair thing for the Government to appoint a Commission to inquire into the whole matter, and to determine what redress the Board were entitled to. Mr T. Ross followed, and explained the position with tho aid of a large map. He f ld Board wanted back the frontage to Cumberland street, between Rattray street and Anderson Bay raid. Thev also wanted restored tho Board's land taken for defence purposes, which produced £IOO yearly; also thirteen acres out of thirtvkix taken on tho south side of Jervois str " t '» and now used simply for storage. Mr A. S. Adams explained that the Citv was being cut in two. Tiie result might be two commnnitKß • with diilbrent interests and the foreshore people would possibly petition Parliament for separate municipal control.—(Laughter.) It had 'been anticipated originally that as the City extended the Board's revenue would grow corresVondwsly He suggested that the most valuable frontages of land taken could now be returned to the Harbor Board without injury to the railway system. As to the question of law, he asked tie Premier to remove it irom one of mere statutory law or the phrasing of Acts of Parliament to one of equity. Ho said the Board had entered on their scheme of harbor improvement before their endowments were taken 4i w^ renoe {Mn - TOr of Dunedin) said ItJq ™ y yearS a? ° the land M ™ v *lwd at ±,8,000 an xicre, meaning, for seventy-five Irom the present conditions. He said that if a strip of land from Cumberland street to the station were restored, the Harbor Board would gain £5,000 yearly and the City Corpo.rat.ion £2,000. He referred to tne fact that Dunedin, commercially, industrially, /?* numerically, had been almost stagnant the last few years. Cr Loudon spoke of the serious effect the would have on the prosperity of Dunedin. He recognised that the Trail dation but the land taken in Dunedin vas out of proportion to the requirements, * being used as a storage .yard. The prin! cipal question, however, was access to the foreshore and the shipping. He referred to the value of the Crawford street block, and said the foreshore blocks would require to be given right of access some dav. The closing ol Stuart street crossing had been a serious matter; and it was lately rumored that owing to the duplication of the Mosgiel line tho street would be closed at Anderson Bay road, which meant that traffic from the wharf to Cavers-ham would •have to cross the railway via Cumberland street. He suggested that the Government should construct a diagonal street leading to the Anderson Bay road Cr Avkle said the temptation to take land had proved too strong for the rail•way engineers, as they got 'it for nothing, except cost of reclamation. Under the clause of the Act mentioned the injustice bad grown gradually, and the Board had been slow to wake up to it. The Hon. Georgo M'Lean reviewed negotiations between the Harbor Board and the Provincial Government, saying it was never intended to give power to take land in the manner they had done Mr J. T. Paul (Trades and Labor Council) said never in Dunedin's history had such a united front been presented. He ■believed that attitude would be up until something was done-. He proceeded to nut the position from the wage-earners' point of view—viz., the value of the foreshore as a manufacturing site and the difficulty and danger of getting access thereto. He said no other city in tho colony would have remained silent so long as Dunedin had done under the wrong inflicted. Cr Brinsley referred to the large expenditure to make Dunedin an up-to-<3ate city. He said_ that ultimately manufacturers on the city side of the railway line would have to go to the other side to get access to the shipping. It would be lamentable if the manufacturers left Dunedin for another city. He admitted that from the legal aspect the Government had a right to take the lands—(dissent)—but mot from the equity aspect.

Mr John Foot© (Waikouaiti County Council) also suoke.

Mr Samson (Taieri County Council), Mr Wilkinson (Rosdyn), and Mr S. N", Brown (Mayor of Maori Hill) also spoke. The Hon. T. Fergus added that the deputation asked that the remaining portion of the Board's endowments should Jbo vested an such manner that they could not be taken from .the Board except on an authority.

AND THE FUTURE OF OUR FORESHORE. OTACO'S PROTEST.

THE PREMIER IN" REPLY.

equivalent to taking under the Public Works Act.

Sir Joseph Ward said he had heard the representations, and promised ,that the Government would give the fullest consideration to what he recognised' to be a, representative deputation. Ho wished to review the position, which he was afraid was not rightly -understood. In the first place the land at* present held by the Railway Department was 69 acres 2 roods 36 perches. The total it did hold was 71 acres 2 roods 7 perches, but it relinquished 1 acre 3 roods 12 perches. Portions of that had been '.riven for street-widening purposes, and Mr Fergus had referred to a small portion leased, but not transferred, to the Art Society, near the station. Part of that was an area for a street, and amounted to about three acres. "It would be bett«r for me to be quite frank," continued the Premier.— (Hear, hear.) " I say clearly that there L° ;K)mething more underlying this than the matter of the Railway Department, the primary desire being to help the finances of the Harbor Board. If the suggestion is made that the Government have taken land worth £3,000 per acre from the Board' the latter nave a very strong claim on the colony, but it won't stand looking into. I hold, an •extract from the Records showing that in 1.879, by proclamation, the Government took sixty-seven and a-half acres of the Board's endowment. The Board had reclaimed part of the endowment, and erected thereon wharves and other improvements. Fcr this tho Board of that day claimed £46,000, but by agreement between the then Board and the Government two arbitrators (Messrs Donald Reid and W. N. Blair) were appointed, and they agreed that £25,500 was a fair value, and. the Government paid that imount to the Board's credit at London In 1889 the Board petitioned for compensation for a further four acres taken, and received £4,500, which they publicly acknowledged. It was only right to tell the deputation that if 'they were making a demand for £600,000 —(Cries of " No, no ") —or that the Government should pay half the debenture ,interest, he was afraid that they were asking wiia't no Parliament would agree to. An examination of the values of the lands at the time of their taking would show that it was according to the Harbor Board's own assessment, and .subsequently two arbitrators had decided. Those facts should certainly be taken as a guide to the money paid for the 67£ acres. At that time, when the bulk of the area taken was covered by water, the Board received £31,000; but the Government had paid 74,000 for the reclamation, so that the total amount paid by the colony was about £IOO,OOO. He had ako to suggest re the prospectus of the original loan that to endeavor to make the colony responsible for tho subsequent position was unfair. The Harbor Board were created in 1874, and it was on record that a considerable portion of the land was used for railway purposes before the Board were established. It was to put the then Government in a right position that acres were taken thaat the Government had purchased.

Mr Fergus interrupted to say that the Government did not purchase, for when tho Act of 1878 was passed the Government took up the position that they would only pay compensation for the amount the Board spent on reclamation. It was not the value of the land taken.

Sir Joseph Ward: I think it will be better if you allow me to finish. He repeated that Mr FeTgus, in mentioning the prospectus of the loan, did not allude to the fact that the Government had paid the Board £25,500 for the land. Mr Fergus: The loan was on the market before the money was paid. Sir Joseph Ward: It is on official record that the money was paid. The suggestion was now mad© that the land taken was worth £B,OOO an acre, the inference being that Dunedin had been injured to that extent. If that were so, no doubt the country should look into the matter. It had also been said that the colony had cut off access to the foreshore from Manor place, Police, Jetty, Water, High, Stuart, and St. Andrew streets. While he was prepared to discuss the question of future access later, a ekse search had been made of old plans, which showed that only two of these streets had ever been shown as level crossings—namely, Jetty and Stuart streets. The first named had the overbridge; the latter had been closed on account of the new station, but provision was made for a n e w street. As to the extension of Hanover street, the Government did not want to inconvenience the Dunedin citizens. Dunedin had a large railway emporium, the largest m the colony. The Government had to make provision for the expansion not only of the City of Dunedin, but of the surrounding ,country. If the Government had closed a couple of streets, while doing so might inconvenience some people, the railway accommodation was necessary. He compared the railway accommodation provided on Dunedin with other towns, and said that in some cases from 350 to 480 to 500 acre.? had been set aside. Sydney possessed 52 acres at Redfern for passenger purposes only. At Flinders street, Melbourne, there were 58 acres for passenger traffic. The Dunedin railway yard was not so large in comparison with what was required even now, and provision for expansion was necessary. Christchurch had 57 acres, and as Lyttelton was the terminus there was no comparison between the two places. The department had suggested the restitution of certain land but it was a very difficult thing to do. there were really three aspects. The deputation wanted either the land to be restored, payment of cash, or access to portions of the foreshore. The Premier indicated plainly that the first was not likely to be granted. Tho Minister of Public Works would visit Dunedin after the session, and see for himself the requirements of the City. He indicated that subways would most probably be made to certain roads. He (Sir Joseph) also indicated that the law should be altered to provide that land taken in future should be taken under the Public Works Act—i.e., at its present value. But this raised an important point —viz., whether to make this retrospective. The sooner that idea was dropped the better, for no public man dared to ask Parliament to ratify that, nor the proposal that the Government should take over half the Board's debenture debt. Were either done, public bodies over all the colony would be asking for similar treatment, and the amount would run into millions. He advised the deputation to be content with getting access to the foreshore. He added that twenty-eight acres out of sixty-seven and a-half of the present railway area were used exclusively for passenger traffic. If the railway yard were restricted in area, the goods and locomotive sheds would have to be shifted far away, which would be a mistake. The Government would never dream of closing Rattray street, and the Government would be found prepared to give additional access to the foreshore.

The deputation thanked the Minister and withdrew, after an interview lasting over two hours.