CROMWELL BOROUGH COUNCIL

Evening Star, Issue 21716, 10 May 1934, Page 15

CROMWELL BOROUGH COUNCIL

LEASE OF ENDOWMENT UNO A special meeting of the Cromwell Borough Council was held on Monday evening to consider notice of motion given by Cr Yeoman—“ That the motion on the minute book of April u, 1934, proposed by Cr Wright and seconded by the mayor, that the Hon. Ministerof Mines be informed, in reply to his communication of December 27, 1933, and February 12, 1934, that the Cromwell Borough Council does not desire the enacting of any validating legislation in respect to the lease of the borough endowment, be ‘ rescinded.” The question of the validation of the lease had become the absorbing topic in Cromwell during the past few days, and there was a full meeting attended by the Mayor (Mr Huberts), Crs C. C. Sanders! F. W. Partridge, W. Brown, J. T. Hoskiug, L. M. Jolly, N. C. Yeoman, W. .Murray, and J. L. Stewart Wright. Mr J. C. Parcell, the borough solicitor, was present, and in response to the mayor’s inquiry stated:—“ 1 am satisfied the lease is a disadvantageous one from the point of view of the borough, but I have already advised the borough that as a lease it is legally valid, even though the Governor’s consent was not- obtained. It is the matter qf renewal that raises the difficulty, and in this particular I am of opinion that the clauses relating to renewal in the present lease are not valid. The borough has already decided that it will treat the lease as valid, and it has acted on this principle up to date. It is very difficult to see what the company hopes to gain by having legislation passed validating the original grant. The position would be, if this course were adopted, that the company would be entitled to an identical lease by way of renewal again without the Governor’s consent being required. I do not think the company is entitled, even morally, to a new lease without the Governor’s consent. In my opinion validation of . the existing lease would only have the effect of perpetuating to the company something that it had no right to receive in the first place. I recommend the borough to continue the attitude it has adopted in the past and to treat the lease as valid, subject always to the proper compliance with the section of the Mining Act which was overlooked when the original lease was prepared. This can be no hardship to the company. The procedure then is for the borough to apnoint a valuer under clause 8, and this should be done immediately. A new draft lease should be prepared and submitted to the Governor for his consent. The Governor may or may not consent, or he may impose conditions or alter the terms, but this is a matter which need not concern the council. When the form of lease has been approved by the Governor it can be put up for auction in accordance with the terms of clause 8. The council is no doubt concerned with the expense of possible litigation, but 1 am satisfied that the course recommended presents least possibility of trouble of this nature. At the same time it must be borne in mind that, owing to the complicated situation, there is an everpresent possibility of litigation, whatever is done. Cr Yeoman, in moving the motion, said that the lease had originally been given in all good faith, and the council had already expressed itself as of the opinion that the lease was valid, it would not, in his opinion, be right to take advantage of any irregularity, and personal prejudice should not influence them to do anything that was not honourable. Cr Yeoman urged that the mere passing of his motion would not necessarily mean that steps would be taken to validate the lease. Cr ' Sanders, who seconded' the motion, said that the Cromwell Development Company had originally set out to do great things, and probably the company was as dissatisfied as were the people of Cromwell at its own failure. He urged that the lease had been given as a valid lease, and that the council should take the necessary steps to validate the same. He admitted it would be a desirable thing for Cromwell to see the Cromwell Development Company go into liquidation and the whole scheme taken over by the Government, yet the company was not to blame for its high water rate of 35s per acre, per annum, but the Government. Cr Wright urged that the lessee had not fulfilled the conditions of the lease, and the council must consider the matter in the light of the greatest good to the greatest number. The fact that a council twenty years ago in a -hate of ecstasy had made a foolish mistake did not justify the present council in continuing that error. Mr Sargond had inferred that they would bo d;shonourable men to take advantage of a technicality, but he would like to know just how many technicalities of a very advantageous nature had the Cromwell Development Company found it convenient to avail itself of. Cr L. M. Jolly said be had been torn in mind as to whether he had previously voted rightly or not, but to-night, after hearing the solicitor’s opinion, he intended to vote against the proposal. Crs Hoskiug, Partridge, and Murray also expressed themselves as determined that no steps should be taken to validate the lease. The motion was declared lost, Crs. Yeoman, Brown, and Sanders voting for it and the mayor, Crs Jolly, Murray, Hoskiug, Partridge, and -.tVright opposing It. The borough solicitor was thereupon instructed to immediately proceed with the preparation of a new lease for submission to the GOvernor-in-Couricil for his approval, Crs Sanders and Wright being appointed to confer in the matter with the solicitor. Mr R. G. Varcoe was appointed as valuer for the borough to carry out a valuation of the improvements.