Selection from "hansard"

Marlborough Express, Volume V, Issue 253, 15 October 1870, Page 5

Selection from "hansard"

THE ESTIMATES —MISCELLANEOUS. In the House of Representatives, on the 2nd September, in Committee of Supply —on the item “ Provincial Charges, Marlborough.—Compensation to A. S. Dreyer, £l5O. Mr Eves objected to this amount being made a provincial charge. The pei’son was entitled to moxu compensation than the sum recommended by the Committee, but it would be a gi’oss injustice to make the sum a charge against the Province. He had been told that the Province should return the money, but the Province never had the money, which had been paid into the Colonial Treasury, nor had Mr Dreyer applied to the Provincial Government to compensate him in any way. It was not the fault of the Provincial Government that he had suffered loss. He objected to the report of the Committee in this case in which most unjustifiable mention had been made of his name. It appeared that this Mr Dreyer had purchased a homestead, and had complied with the conditions required, as had been proved this session. When the case was befoi’e the committee last year, no evidence on behalf of the petitioner was taken, and an adverse decision was arrived at by the Committee, who decided that he had no claim, and that if he had, he had his remedy at law. But how could a man go to law with the Governor to compel him to issue a Crown gi’ant? The matter was gone into more fully this yeai’, and evidence was taken which the Committee considered sufficient to award this man the sum of £l5O as compensation ; and they further reported that they considered a Crown grant should be given to him for his land, which he had been kept out of for a long time. Sir D. Moneo would like to ask the Colonial Treasurer if he thought that was an amount that ought to be paid to this person. Mr Vogel said the amount was put upon the estimates simply on the recommendation of the Private Petitions Committee. Sir D. Monro said that, as the Government was proceeding on that principle, he would offer no opposition to this amount being granted as compensation, but it appeared to him that as a question had been raised as to what source it should be paid from, it clearly oughttobe made a provincial chaige ; and he was of opinion that the ground of compensation arose out of what he could' only designate as the contumaciousness of the Provincial Government, who had been advised by the Secretary for Crown Lands that they could not legally sell that land. This Mr Dreyer was in occupation of a run. Under the land law of the Province of Marlborough he was entitled to purchase eighty aci'es for a homestead, on condition of satisfying the Crown Lands Office that he had made certain improvements. The provincial authorities were not satisfied that the requisite improvements had been made, and referred the matter to the Secretary for Crown Lands. He was not satisfied with the proofs that were offered, and advised the Commissioner of Crown Lands not to sell the land. Notwithstanding that, the authorities of the Province of Marlborough sold this gentleman eighty aci’es of land at £1 an acre. The Secretary for Crown Lands having been satisfied that the transaction was illegal, and consequently void, the Crown grant was not issued. Tlxe Province of Marlborough had received the money, and it appeared to him that if this gentleman had suffered injury by the action of any authority, it was by the action of the provincial authorities that he had sufferred, and if he were entitled to compensation it should come out of provincial funds. Mr Exes said if the honorable gentleman’s assumption were correct there would be something in his argument, but as to the legality of the sale, it was not necessary that the Secretary for Crown Lands should be consulted. The sale having taken place, a protest was lodged by the agents of Messrs Robinson and Eenwick. Sir D. Moneo. —Before the sale took place, Mr Exes. —The protest was made on the same day as the sale. Sir D. Moneo. —But before the sale took place. Mr Exes. —No communication took place with the Secretary for Crown Lands and the Provincial Government or the Provincial Council; therefore, the assumption of the honorable gentleman was wrong. Even supposing he was right, he should like to know what business the Secretary for Crown Lands had to advise any Provincial Government as to the legality or nonlegality of its transactions. The Provincial Government were perfectly satisfied that the regulations had been complied with and that the sale was a bona Jide one, and so were the Committee who investigated the case as they had recommended that compensation should be granted. His argu-

ment was, that compensation should not come from the Province, which had done nothing wrong, but should be charged to the General Government, in consequence of delay having taken place through the bad advice given by the Secretary for Crown Lands, who was a General Government officer. He would like to call the attention of the Government to the fact that the Committee recommended that the Crown grant should be issued. He knew that one or two people in the Province, who were interested in the property, were very desirous indeed that that recommendation should be carried into effect. Mr Dreyer having ceased to be the possessor of the property, the injustice was borne by the persons who were now the legal owners.

Mr McLean said the honorable member for Wairau admitted that the claim for compensation was a fair one, and his only objection was that it should not be made a provincial charge. He had failed to show, however, that the Provincial Government had not been in errror, and had thrown the whole responsibility upon the Secretary for Crown Lands. It was very desirable, and in fact, necessary, that the Crown Lands Commissioners in the different Provinces should correspond and communicate with the Secretary for Crown Lands on all questions that were at issue similar to the one under discussion. That appeared to him to be one of the principal functions of the office. The Province having received the money, it was only fair that they should refund it to the person who was entitled to it, and who could not get a title to the land. Mr Eves would like to be informed by the Treasurer whether the vote would be made a Provincial or a general charge. Mr Yogel said it would certainly not be made a general charge. The whole question had been debated by the Public Petitions Committee, and after hearing the evidence of the hon. member for Wairau himself, it was decided that compensation was due, and that it should be a charge upon the Province. Item agreed to.

WAIRAU TALLEY ROADS RESERVATION BILL, In the House of Representatives, on September 5 th— Mr M'Lean moved that the second reading of this Bill be postponed until Wednesday next, until he should find out who had charge of the Bill, From observations made by the hon. member for Timaru, he understood that the Bill affected the rights of private property. The Speaker considered this Bill to be highly objectionable. He had made inquiry and found that its object was to take a portion of the private property of a gentleman without giving him notice of the intention to do so. It was due to the owner of the property that he should have notice, in order that he might appear before the tribunal that was to take a part of his property from him, and be heard on the matter. Mr Gracroft Wilson, C. 8., would oppose the Bill, as it purported to upset what had been done in 1866, which was mainly to remove all doubts as to the absolute validity of titles to land held in fee simple, under Crown grants, in which rights of way were reserved for roads. As there were many Crown grants which did contain a reservation as regarded the right of making roads, he had caused those clauses to be put into the Act in order to make the Crown grants legally valid. This Bill would upset what had,been done in 1866, and he would move that it be read that day six months. Mr Bunny would support the motion for the postponement of the order of the day, so as to give the person in charge of the Bill an opportunity of stating his reasons for introducing such a measure. Mr Baigent said it would be a pity that the country should be shut up. There must be a road to Wairau Valley, and he would support the motion for postponement. Mr Barff had made inquiry about the Bill, and there were doubts as to whether it was not a private Bill. He believed the hon. gentleman at whose instance the Bill was originally brought forward was prepared to allow it to drop. The amendment was agreed to, and the Bill ordered to be read a second time that day six months. wairau valley road bill. On September 10th, in the Legislative Council, the Hon. Mr Seymour moved the second reading of this Bill. He said its object was to attain the same result as was intended by a Bill entitled the Wairau Valley Roads Reservation Bill, which was sent by the Council to the other branch of the Legislature, where the Speaker took exception to it as being in the form of a private Bill. He had afterwards consulted the Speaker on the subject, and the present Bill had been framed in such a manner as not to be open to that objection. It pro-

vided that compensation should bo given to to the owners of land through which the road was to pass ; that the road should be laid out within a limited time; that the? case of the owners of the land should be heard before a tribunal; and that the Secretary for Crown Lands should report as to whether compensation should be given, and if so, to what amount. If that comse were pursued, and proper compensation awarded, then power could be given to make the roads. There was also a provision in the Bill to enable the Commissioner of Crown Lands to employ surveyors, and to protect them in the laying out of the land.

The Hon. Mr M'Lkan asked the honorable member if it was intended by the Bill to effect the same object as the Bill that was passed a few days ago, because, if it did, it was of a totally different cnaracter. He regretted that more time was not taken in considering the former Bill, because that Bill was to enable the Superintendent of Marlborough to. lay down a road, which they were told by the hon. member he was entitled to do when the land was sold; but he found, in the present Bill, that there were clauses providing for compensation, and if similar provisions were contained in the previous Bill, they had done an act of injustice in passing it. The Hon. Mr Bonak said the object of the Bill had been correctly explained by the Hon. Mr Seymour. A road had been in existence before, but had been allowed to become obliterated. The object of the Bill was to give compensation, due regard being taken to the fact of the road having been laid out before.

The Hon. Captain Baillie said that the owners of the land in question had received twice the quantity of land that had been taken for the road. The Hon. Mr Seymour said the hon. member, Mr M'Lean, would see, if he turned to the preamble of the Bill, that, when the lands were granted, a certain indefinite right of road was reserved in the grants for the purpose of constructing a road ; and, in fact, there was a reservation for ever of 215 acres of land. Subsequently, by the Crown Grants Act, that indefinite right was limited to a period of three years, and, from circumstances which he had explained in moving the second reading of the other Bill, that right was allowed to lapse ; and, therefore, it became within the power of the holders of the land to shut up the road which had been in use over twenty years, Ho injustice would be done to the owners of the land by making the inquiries provided in the Bill, because they had received a much larger quantity of land comprised in the reserve for a road than was now sought to be taken from them. The Bill was read a second time, considered in Committee, reported without amendment, read a third time, and passed.