The Hastings Standard Published Daily TUESDAY, OCTOBER 5, 1897. BUSHY PARK.

Hastings Standard, Issue 443, 5 October 1897, Page 2

The Hastings Standard Published Daily TUESDAY, OCTOBER 5, 1897. BUSHY PARK.

For the cause that lacks assistance. For the wrongs that need resistance. For the future in the distance, And the good that we can do.

Towards the close of April last and early in the following month the cry of jobbery was raised with respect to Bushy Park. We were given to understand that some undue preference was shown the sons of the Minister of Lands, aud that the price paid for the property was below its value. The intention of those who circulated these stories was of course to discredit the Government, and at the time most people thought that Bushy Park was jobbed. Writing on May 13th we said " The Minister of Lands has baen heckled and worried over Bushy Park ; and if one could credit the ravings of the slusb-loving critics, the sale of this estate to the McKenzie Bros, is a gross job. There are always two sides to a story, and one stands good until the other is told. We have had the story of the political dead-beats and wind-bags, and we shall probably have to wait until Parliament meets to get the other and perhaps the true story of Bushy Park." And the true story was given in the House last Friday evening. We could not credit the fairy tales that were being circulated by the political scandalmongers for the reason that the management of the Assets Board was not liable to Ministerial influence ; furthermore, with a member of the Opposition party on the Board it seemed too ridiculous that a Ministerial job could be worked. Mr Fraser, who sits as the nominee of the Bank of New Zealand on the Assets Board, from his place in the House stated that it had been said this property was sold to the relatives of the Minister for Lands at a low price, and that the estate was sold in such a way as to place other wouldbe purchasers at a disadvantage, and that it should not have been sold in one block, but cut up so as to promote small settlement. He went into figures to show that the profit of the estate for five years was £405 per annum, which at 5 per cent, would not bring in £4 per acre, and yet the Assets Board had disposed of it at £8 per acre. He (Mr Fraser) with the Chairman of the Board had gone over the property in 1896, and he was much horrified to see the condition the estate was in. A great portion of the grass had run out, and the place was covered with couch grass. He had remarked to his colleague that stock could not live on the estate, and he estimated the land as worth £7 to £7 10s per acre. The result of his examination was that he thought it very improbable the Board would ever get the reserve price for the land. Another allegation was that the Board sold the property for less than its value, but a graver charge was that the Board gave the sons of the Minister of Lands advantages that other people did not get. He pointed out that the Board did not obtain control of the property till April, 1897, and one of the first things the Board did was to issue an advertisement asking for offers for the property. This advertisement was inserted in the newspapers in every large town in the colony, from 22nd April, till the 25th April. The Board received a number of inquiries about the property, but not a single sixpence an acre was offered foe it. He consulted the directors of the Bank of New Zealand wita

had appointed him to the Board (Messrs Booth and Walter Johnston). He expressed the opinion that the wisest thing the Board could do would be to sell the land to the M'Kenzie brothers at their offer of £8 an acre. It was eventually decided to let them have the land on lease with a purchasing clause, and that they should pay £IOOO cash, with stock on valuation. It was said that the purchasers had not paid euough, but personally he was prepared to offer exceptional terms to any purchaser considering the state the property was in. He had received a message from the general manager of the Assets Board that day stating that he had visited the property and found that the tenants were doing excellent work there, and had paid their rent to the day. Mr Fraser concluded by saying that it was a legitimate transaction legitimately carried out. This story does not fit in with the jobbery yarn circulated in May last, and furthermore we think Mr Fraser's statement will be believed in preference to the malicious statements of fire-eating politicians. Mr Fraser gives the official story, copious in detail and unchallenged. It entirely exonerates the Minister of Lands of any jobbery or any such wickedness, and brands the yelping snarling crowd of political fault-finders as a pack of prevaricators. Mr M'Kenzie must be highly elated at the discomfiture of his opponents. Many of the other stories of nepotism, maladministration, and jobbery if they have no more foundation in fact than the Bushy Park yarn will scarcely need Ministerial reply. However, both Mr Seddon and Mr M'Kenzie have yet to speak on the Address in Reply, and we shall then get a view of the other side of the picture. Bushy Park has been settled from the Opposition benches.