THE NINE CHARGES

Evening Star, Issue 14512, 2 November 1910, Page 11

THE NINE CHARGES

BEFORE THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL COMMITTEE. "

THE NAINAI PURCHASE,

[From Ora Parliamentary Rsportbr.] WELLINGTON, November 2. Tho Committee set up by the Legislative Council to inquire into the'charges made by Mr Hine, M.P., against the Hon. T. K. Macdonald in connection with the sale of the Nainai and Waiwetu properties to the Government sat again last night. The Hon. J. B. Callan presided, and Messrs M. Myers and C. P. Skerrett, K.C., appeared for Messrs Hine and Macdonald respectively. Mr Myers stated that Mr Leigh, one of his most important witnesses, was at present in Christchurch, but would probably leave there that night in response to an urgent telegram. Thos. Wm. Caverhill, of Petone, said that he had been in the Government Service as district valuer for the Hutt County and adjacent districts for the ten years preceding Juno 10, 1910. The property of 143 acres at Nainai acquired by the Government from Mr Leigh some years ago, had been valued by him, acting under instructions from the Land Purchase Board. The land was wanted for workers’ homes. He valued it at £BO an acre. About that time he saw Mr Macdonald, who wished him to increase the valuation, but witness declined to do so. Witness had advised against the purchase of the estate for workers’ homes, as the land was not first class and was near no industries. The purchase was subsequently completed, however, for £l5O an acre.

To Mr Skerrett: He had always been on very friendly tc#ms with Mr Macdonald, who, being also a land valuer, discussed witness’s valuations with him. It was a mere friendly discussion between two valuers. Witness was rather annoyed with Mr Macdonald for wanting him to raise his valuation. They had honestly differed over a good many valuations. He (witness) held to his view, and the Government paid too much tor the property. To Dr Finday : Either Mr M'Kerrow or Mr Barron was chairman of the Land Purchase Board. Neither of these two gentlemen was at all inclined to place too high a valuation on land. They were both cautions, careful men, absolutely beyond the suspicion of being open to any influence from any quarter whatever. Mr Myers here stated that the chairman at the time was Mr Barron. Witness admitted to Dr Findlay that whether he or Mr Barron had made a mistake over the valuation, it was an honest one. To the Hon. Mr Samuels : Mr Macdonald remonstrated with him over his valuation, and found fault with him for not putting it higher. He thought the vendor would have been lucky to sell at £BS an acre to any purchaser. Land values were booming at the time. To the Hon. Mr Luke: A number of people had found that they had given too ' much for land in the Hutt Valley.

Mr Luke ; So that the Government were not peculiar in that respect? Witness repeated that the land was not suitable for the Government’s purpose. Nainai was originally a swamp, and the Government had to spend a god deal in draining it. J. D. Ritchie, Land Purchase Inspector, produced the files relating to the acquisition of the Nainai property from Mr Leigh. The sale to the Government was first proposed in April, 1904, by Mr Leigh, who wrote offering the 143 acres at £2OO per acre to the Land Purchase Board. The reply in August, 1904, was that the Land Purchase Board declined to negotiate further.

Mr Myers asked the nature of the negotiations between April and August, 1904. Witness; A valuation was made. Mr Myers asked for particulars of it. Witness raised the point that this was confidential departmental information. Dr Findlay thought that the valuation should be given. Witness then read Mr Caverhill’s valuation report made on May 14, 1904. The value placed on the land by Mr Cavorhill wre £6O an acre. Witness’ continued that the Land Purchase Board finally considered this report on July 24. Mr Leigh wrote to the Land Purchase Board on’June 29 offering the property to the Board for £l5O au acre. On April 13, 1905, Mr Barron received a telegram from the late Mr Seddon saying that he had received a wire from Macdonald, Wilson, and Co. saying that they had properties for sale in the Hutt Valley. Mr Sedclon’s wire instructed Mr Barron to inspect and report on these properties, as kind was wanted for workers’ homes in anticipation of the straightening of the Hutt Railway. On April 13 the Board met, and recommended that the Nainai property should be bought for £l2O an acre. The members of the Land Purchase Board then were Messrs Barron, Marchant, and Kensington. Tney personally inspected the property. This was rather an unusual course. The recoin mendation was considered the following day by Cabinet, who authorised an offer of £l2O per acre. Mr Ban-on on 26th April received a letter from Macdonald, Wilson, and Co. expressing thanks for the offer, hut pointing out that land just across the road was selling for £3OO an acre. On 28th April the Board met again, and resolved to recommend an increase iii price to £l5O an acre. The Board meeting on that occasion comprised Mess is Barr> .;s. v l|ecse, Kensington, and Strachan. On otnrilay Cabinet decided to make a final offer of £l5O au acre, Mr Leigh having in the interval written complaining of the “ ridiculous offer” of £l2O. Messrs Macdonald, Wilson wrote on 12th May confirming, on behalf of Mr Leigh, the'sale of the property at £l5O an acre. Mr Myers at this st;u;c asked whether, if a member of Parliament or a Minister interviewed a member of the Tamil Purchase Department with reference to the purchase ot property, any record of that interview would appear on the file? Witness replied that ho thought not. Witness continued that if there was an independent Ministerial file in connection with this purchase he had never seen it. To Mr Skerrett: On sth May, 1904, Mr Barron, reporting on two properties in the Hutt Valley, wrote that Air Leigh’s properly was {oo dear at £2O an acre, but if they could get the vendor to quote £l4O an acre negotiations might proceed. Cabir.c ordered this report to stand over for two months, and on 24th July, 1904, Cabinet decided to take no further action. Up to that time the negotiations had been conducted by Mr Leigh only. To Dr Findlay; Ho neither knew nothin! reason to suspect that any file indent-; lent of the departmental file was in < enec. There was no reason, either, in ' n- practice to prevent members of the Purchase Board making a personal tion of properties under offer. The .-rs who inspected the Nainai proj were experienced and reliable valuaile believed that conditions had ; ,v changed since Mr Caverhill had his valuations. On several occasions the Board had recommended purchases at prices in excess of the valuations of thenown valuers.

F. \V. Flanagan, Valuer-General, gave the amount of the valuations of his department. In 1905 the property was valued at £11,870 unimproved and £12,860 impioved value, ana the same values were placed on it in 1909. To Mr Skerrett: It was a notorious fact .that properties changed hands at prices far in excess of the Government valuations. William Thomas Strang, contractor, at the Hutt, said he had been associated with Mr Leigh in the purchase of the Nainai property in March, 1903. Witness had about one-third interest for some months, when Mr Leigh took it over from him. He was agreeable to Mr Leigh offering it to the Government in 1905 at about £IOO an acre.

To Mr Skorrett: This property hid heor\ the subject of an action between witness and Mr Leigh, and witness had to pay Mr Leigh about £I,BOO. He had no documents to show that the property was offered to the Government at £IOO an acre. To i)r Findlay; He had purchased 43

acres of the 143 from Mr Leigh at the price at which Mr Leigh had purchased. He believed the price was about £SO an acre. Dr Findlay: Would you be surprised to know that the price you paid was £7O an acre? Mr Myers: That was the price; £7O an acre. Dr Findlay: Then you are only £2O an acre out in your recollection. Alexander Lorimer Wilson, auctioneer and land agent, formerly partner with T. K Macdonald for the ten years ended March, 1908, said Mr Leigh's property was in the firm’s hands for sale. It was first offered to the Government early in 1905. Witness saw Mr Barron and the late Mr Reese about the property. Both witness and Mr Macdonald took part in the negotiations. He received a commission, the total amount paid into the office being £556, but he could nob be sure by whom it was paid. Mr Skerrctt (to Mr Myers): The money went through your own office. Mr Myers: Were any moneys paid into your office in addition to £536 in connection with Leigh’s sale ? Witness; Nob that lam aware of. Witness stated, further, that the commission was at the rate of per cent, on a transaction of £21,000- —i.e., 143 acres at £l5O an acre. The commission was divided between himself and Mr Macdonald. To Mr Skerrott: The £537 for commission was the only sum received by the firm in connection with Leigh’s property. Had there been any other moneys ne would have known of it. The 222' 2 per cent, was the usual commission. He had never pressed the matter of the purchase on any .Minister.

Tho Committee adjourned until to night.