Hawke's Bay Herald. FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 18937 THE WOBURN BUSINESS.

Hawke's Bay Herald, Volume XXVIII, Issue 9298, 17 February 1893, Page 2

Hawke's Bay Herald. FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 18937 THE WOBURN BUSINESS.

It is no wonder that people quarrel over histories purporting to state what has taken place in tbe dim past, seeing how imposlible it is to get agreement about things happening in oar own time and under oar very noses. The Woburn assessment is a case in point. That was decided so recently as the 6th of October last. Since that time there have arisen many dogtnatlo exhorters and history makers, and these, with muddy propositions mnddily expounded, seek to confonnd plain facts. The Wobnrn case may be stated in a few words. The owner of the property stated Its value to be Si an acre, The Government demanded a valuation of £5 7a 6d. A Board of Reviewers appointed by the Government decided that the Government were asking too much, and fixed the value at £4 17s 6d. This did not satisfy the Government, who tried by varions means to get from the owner consent to pay the valuation which the Board appointed by the Government had decided was unfair. The resnlti was a special sitting of the Board to consider the appeal that followed, and tbe Board decided that the valuation demanded by the Government) was an unfair one, and declined to alter their former decision. As stated above, the matter was finally settled in October last, yet since that time there has been on the part ot the Government papers a long course of misrepresentation in which id is implied that the Government, under threat of taking over the ptopetty, compelled the owner to agree to the Government valuation. The last I appearance of the fabrication was in tbe Ni\* Zealand Times, whioh linked the Cheviot property and Woburn together, and argued that the Government, by taking over the first, and making the second pay the Government) valuation, bad benefited the country. As to the Cheviot estate, the persons benefited by the taking over of that tor cash are the heirs under the late owner's will. In our opinion the Government have allowed themselves to be led into a transaction by which an immense property has been converted into o:ish at a price that could not have been obtained for it in themarket, It is possible that by further expenditure on the land, and by refraining from charging it with the ordinary clerical ex. penses which the dealing with such a large property involves, in the end a fcalanc'e- sheet showing only a moderate loss in interest will be forthcoming, but the fact will Btill remain that the persona most benefited by the transaction are the legatees, The property was left so tied up that) it could not be divided among the heirs, and they might have waited for a division till the Greek kalends if a Government that loves the people had not come along and paid more for the property than the owner had offered to sell it for when he was alive. Returning to the Woburn estate, it has been denied that the Government were called upon to take over the property or reduce their valuation. We asserted such to be the oase, and we again asserb it. The contradiction ia based upon the fact (at least, we can only snppoae it ia) hat no aotnal written request to take over the property was made. Bat those who talk like that can never have read h Act to understand it. Under the Act, hose who refuse to accept the Government valuation by that refusal place the Government in the position of either reducing their valuation or of taking over the property valued. The owner of Woburn, by his agents, did refuse to accept the Government valuation, and the Government, well knowing that by this act he was calling upon them to reduce or take over, gave notice that they accepted the alternative. They knew very well that they were called upon to reduce or to take the property, bub being desirous of doing neither they simply shuffled, and after giving the formal notice that the property wonld be taken, sought to obtain a valuation of £5 78 6d an acre in the teeth of the facb that the Board they had themselves appointed had fixed the value at ten shillings an acre less. Before the owner of Wobnrn could appeal against the attempt to extorb from him £5 7s 6d an acre, he bad to accept that valuation to prevent the Government taking his property at £4 8s per acre, being at the rate of 10 per cent upon tbe valuation he had stated for taxation, although at the time the Board sat to consider the appeal he was willing to pay upon £4 17s 6d. The result of the appeal was to fix the valuation at that very Bum. All tbe subsequent misrepresentation by the Government organs has been for the purpose of throwing dost into the eyes of tbe electors. It was a good political cry, at the time of the attempt to extort) more than the Government's own Board had fixed, to say, " We are the Government that are going to squelch Purvis Russell." Ib was not a question of being fair bo much as of seeming to wish to "flatten out the big bugs," We quite ' agree with those who say that absenteeism such as is displayed in the ease of | Woburn is something for the district to regard with regret, but that is a different thing to advocating spoliation. And in any case, as tbe law has already appraised the damage done by absenteeism by Imposing 20 per cent more taxation upon absentees, and as Mr Purvis Museell pays that) extra taxation for the privilege of living outside the colony, he must be regarded as on an equal footing with all other settlers so far as being entitled to fait play lv the matter ot valuations i" concerned. And the Government cannot olaim that they were willing to give him fair play without at the same time accusing the Board of Reviewers they bad themselves appointed of being corrupt and untrustworthy, for that Board had, at the time the Government were attempting to get a valuation of £S 7s 6d per acre, fixed it at £4 17s 6d.