Bushy Park.

Hastings Standard, Issue 313, 4 May 1897, Page 4

Bushy Park.

INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. The opening interchange of courtesies between the Hon. J. McKenzie aud Mr George Hutchison, rc the latter's application for an inspection of the deeds of the Bushy Park purchase, has already been noticed in our columns. Our Wellington correspou- j dent forwards a copy of further correspondence between the parties as follows : " Wellington, April 27, 1897- " The Hon. Jobn McKenzie, " Wellington, " Dear Sir, —Thanks for your Bushy Park reply. The position is certainly humorous, but I think it would be a pity to push the joke the length you suggest. Possibly on reflection you will agree that it would be a sorry piece of pleasantry to ask one's host for the perusal of his title deeds. But there need be no ' difficulty.' As far as I know, the registered post is still free from inspiration, and might be trusted to return the deeds that were unfortunately sent away just before receipt of my request. A few days' delay won't matter—that is, if you do not wish to withdraw the offer which was my excuse for troubling you. Or, if the deeds cannot conveniently be returned, the solicitors who might have produced them on your order will no doubt have copies or drafts, Avhich would give all the information necessary. Why not send an authority to see them ?—Yours truly, " G. Hutchison. " P.S. —I notice this morning that you have published onr. yesterday's exchange of letters. - They must have been handed by you to the printers almost as soon as your reply reached me. Perhaps you will take the same prompt means to publish this correspondence as it proceeds." " Wellington, 28th April, 1897. " The Hon John McKenzie, " Wellington. " Dear Sir, —No answer. So your offer to produce the deeds was sheer bluff. And now you desire that silence shall fall upon Bushy Park. That cannot be. But before dealing with the purchase permit me a passing reference to your letter of the 26th. Some people seem to think your invitation to me to visit Bushy Park was intended as a piece of brutal malignity. The language you used certainly supports an interpretation different from that I supposed, but I am still unwilling to believe you would so disgrace the very name of hospitality as to contemplate harsh measures on such an occasion. Probably the idea arose from some recollection of the ' smack over the ear' you once threatened me with. But of course you did not carry out that threat. The fierce onslaught stopped by the timely interference of your friends was only a simulated battle. You never meant to commit a breach of the peace; neither do you now, I hope, mean to shame the name of McKenzie. To suppose your invitation to visit Bushy Park covered a design to shoot your guest would be to suppose what might damage even the reputation of a Cabinet Minister. Besides, a tragedy on the spot might depreciate the value of such a fine property. On every consideration, therefore it would have unwise of you to harbor such bloodthirsty feelings; so that I am probably right in assuming that what most people considered rudeness you intended for wit. I am well assured the honor of a Highlander is not less bright than that of the Arab of the desert, who treats himself as hostage for his guest—even if he be his greatest enemy." " Passing from that aspect of the matter, let us approach the more important subject. Your sons have secured a bargain. They are to be congratulated; that is their affair. The public's affair is to ascertain whether this bargain was obtained under circumstances that amount to the bestowal of a personal favor by those whose duty it is to guard the interests of the taxpayers, and also to consider how the details of this bargain accord with the professed principles of those, including yourself, who are having to do with the administration of public affairs." " The Parliamentary committee of 1895, of which you were a member, recommended (as supplementing the £2,000,000 guaranteed to the Bank of New Zealand in the previous year) that the colony should further guarantee the bank its ' book value ' of the globo assets. You and your colleagues were successful in passing legislation which carried out that recommendation by I which £2,680,000, as representing the ! ' book value ' of the globo assets transferred to the Assets Board for realisation, was guaranteed by the colony. These globo assets at the time were said to be worth £1,879,000 —that is, according to what the committee described as ' the bank's latest ascertained value.' The difference, representing upwards of £BOO,OOO, was indicated as likely to be made good by the future profits of the reconstructed bank ; so also any shrinkage in the so-called ' latest ascertained value,' which was about as fictitious in degree as ' the book value,' which the authority of the Government imposed as a liability upon the colony. The relative values at different times of these assets, as a whole, may not inaptly be illustrated in part by the Bushy Park property, for instance, which was taken over by the colony as part security for the millions it guaranteed. " The ' book value ' of Bushy Park has never been disclosed to the public, but it may be safely stated at not less than £32,000. Its 'latest ascertained value ' (in August, 1895) was £7OOO less, and what may be called its ' realised value' now (in 1897) is £SOOO lower still; so that the ' realised, is not less than £12,000 short of the ' book value.' In the circumstances some little concern may be pardoned the public in seeking to arrive at the terms

of a transaction which draws so much upon their forbearance and, probably, ou their means. "As you decline to assist in this enquiry I am left to deal with such facts as are otherwise available. lu doing so I Hi;all be careful to state only what can be substantiated. Many details both interesting and instructive may appropriately await further developments. Now to the facts. " Early in 1890 the Assets Board gave publicity to a general intimation that it was open to consider proposals for any of the properties in its charge. As to Bushy Park, nothing seems to have resulted, from that invitation. The estate remained under the management of your eldest son. Some months later the property was cut up by the board for sale. You were well aware of this. You discussed the matter with neighbors and others. All at once this idea was abandoned, and proposals were made (indirectly) for the disposal of the estate to those now in possession, but as the general election was coming on the completion of the matter was considered proper to be deferred. "After the general election arrangements were concluded for the lease of the land with a contract to purchase, and for the sale of the stock at an amount to be fixed by the valuation of one of the purchasers and of one of the station managers of the board. An umpire was appointed, but his services were unnecessary. The two valuers agreed The purchasers had reason to be satisfied when they had co deal with such a body as the Assets Board. " A report from one of the officers (unnamed) of the Board read by the Premier at his Newtown meeting on the 21st April states ' the proceeds of the sale of Bushy Park will yield to the Realisation Board the sum of £9OO, or 4-J per cent on £20,000, free from all responsibility or deductions of any kind.' This presupposes the purchase of the freehold as well as the stock, aud as the bargain is a good one (for the purchasers) the terms will no doubt be given effect to so that it is allowable to assume (as the Loard seems to assume) that the purchase of the whole for £20,000 has practically been completed. " Now for the application of the facts. Let us see how this transaction, which you seek to justify, accords with the treatment which you as a Minister of the Crown consider good enough for others—- " 1. Advances to settlers maybe obtained from the board of which you are a member at 5 per cent. Public funds have been made available to your sons by another board of which two members are Government nominees at 4J per cent. " Advances to settlers are restricted (and properly so) to three-fifths tlie freehold valuation. Advances to your sons are made to the full limit of the purchase money. "2. Selectors under your Land Acts are restricted to G4O acres of firstclass land. Your sons are assisted by the board appointed under the Bank of New Zealand and Banking Act to 2243 acres of first-class fend. "3. Selectors under the Land for Settlements Act (being those dealing with properties which most nearly admit of a parallel to Bushy Park) are restricted to a lease in perpetuity at 5 per cent rental on a valuation which is generally considered too high. Your sons are enabled by the Assets Board to acquire a freehold with funds provided at per cent on a valuation which is generally considered too low. " The latest edition of the Crown Lands Guide, issued under your authority as Minister for Lands, urges ou the publio the desirability of taking up the unselected and forfeited sections in the Pomahaka block and other recent investments of the public capital. Why were your sons not persuaded to try that specific for true settlement, the lease in perpetuity, which you so strongly recommended to others, instead of being encouraged to embark on that doomed tenure of freehold, which in this instance has the enervating distinction of ' an expensive homestead,' and of large woolsheds and sheep yards, besides having (as now appears from your own graphic description) the additional snares of capital fishing and shooting ?—Yours truly, " G. Hutchison."