STARK PURCHASE COMMISSION.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXIII, Issue 7773, 20 October 1886, Page 6

STARK PURCHASE COMMISSION.

The commission appointed to make inquiry into the circumstances attending the purchase by the Government of Mr. Stark'e property on the North Shore resumed their sitting yesterday morning. The commissioners were the Hon. Colonel Haultain (presiding), Judge Harvey, and Mr. Weetenra. Mr. Theo. Cooper appeared for the Vigilance Commit' tee, Mr. O'Meagher for Mr. Stark, Mr. Chapman (for Mr. Button) watched the proceedings on behalf of the Government. Messrs. Chambers (seoretary of the Vigilance Committee), Alison, Brewer, Seaman, Jeune, and others were also in attendance. Mr. Cooper aaid with respect to the application made on the previous day for Sir Julius Vogel to produce his bankbook and other private papers, he wished to say that they did not desire it, and the application was made under a misapprehension. If they found it essential to have the evidence of Sir Julius Vogel they would arrange for it being taken in Wellington. They would not insist upon having it unless they found it necessary. It would depend a good deal upon the evidence given by Mr. Brewer. He wished to Bay that no personal imputation was cast upon Sir Julius Vogel, but that as he was in the district when the purchase was made, he might be able to give some information as to the manner in whioh the Government arrived at the value, and arranged the purchase. The Chairman said they could not think of asking Sir Julius Vogel to produce his bankbook or papers of a private character. Mr. William Philoox was then examined as to his connection with the enquiry. Hβ had given information to Mr. Mitchelson as to the witnesses he should call and the information which he thought they could give. The witnesses he mentioned had, for the most part, already given evidence before the Commissioners. His statement respecting Mr. Alison was simply on common report. He never thought of his letter appearing in public or being made the use of it had been. He afterwards gave Mr. Mitchelson permission to use bis name to the committee but not to the public. The Chairman remarked that everything that came before the committee was publio. Mr. Philoox said he had written the letter not thinking of it being made publio, and certain expressions in the letter, he had sought to have expunged, and he thought they ought to have been. He did not know who the conspirators were he men* tioned as being a matter of common report. It was clear to his mind that Mr. Alison was in collusion with others, but he did not know with who. He did not refer to any other conspirators. By Mr. Cooper: Hβ never wished to convey any imputation against Mr. Seaman. He believed the statements in the letter were borne out by the facts he had collected. His object was not to persecute Mr. Alison nor anyone else, but to prevent the Government doing these things in an irregular manner. That had been the cause of all the trouble. The Chairman remarked that the Minister was responsible, and that there was nothing irregular in his making these enquiries. Mr. Philcox said there were regular means and an equity court through whioh the transaction ought to have been conducted. The Chairman remarked that there were numbers of Government purchases which did not go through courts. It was only in cases of dispute. By Mr. O'Meagher: Witness was not one of the chief persons to ciroulate the reports about the inquiry, and did not make it his business to go about the streets doing so. He did not say that members of the Government were implicated in it, though that was a matter of publio report. His only object was a desire to benefit the country. He had never before felt it his duty to expose anything of the kind. He must have been aware before that time that Mr. Stark was reserved as a probable candidate for Waitemata, but he did not know that Mr. Mitohelson was also thinking of coming forward. He did not know that Mr. Daore was partner with Mr. Mitchelson, though he knew he was something in his office. He was acquainted with Mr. Stark, but was not lately on speaking terms with him. The difference between them arose when witness was not re-elected on the directorate of the Ferry Company, when he retired at the end of three years, and offered himself for re-election. He did not know that Mr. Stark was ever a managi ing director of the company. He was not ! on speaking terms with Mr. Alison from the same cause. He stood for election on the licensing committee, and would have opposed granting a license at the Jockey Club meeting, bat he was not elected. That was not from personal feeling against Mr. Alison. The word be wished to have expunged from the letter was "notorious," as applied to Mr. Alison. He still said the transaction was a shameful business. He did not remember saying to his wife that Sir Julius Vogel had got a lump of money out of the trans* action, and did not know that she had said so to Mrs. Alison. Mr. Alison was notorious as a smart business man, and he prided himself on being so. In the course of a long cross-examination witness denied that he was actuated in the matter by personal feeling against Mr. Stark or Mr. Alison. The statements he made to Mr. Mitchelson were not intended to be made publio. Mr. Seaman sfeid after Mr. Philcox's withdrawal of any charge he had made, he did not think it neceasary to ask him any questions. Mr. Cooper said Mr. Philoox had stated that he did not desire to cast any reflections on Mr. Seaman, and if any language he had used had been so construed he wished that it should not be so. Judge Harvey said in that case Mr. Philoox entirely exonerated Mr. Seaman from any complicity in the alleged conspiracy. Mr. Seaman then read the following letter : — Auckland, August 15, 1886. Mr. Seaman. Sir,— giving your evidence before the Committee in Stark e affair, I observe that you said there was a great deal of bitterness shown by me against Mesiri. Stark and Alison, for which you express yourself as being very sorry. Permit me to say that 1 should be very sorry too if the statement were true, but I think yonr knowledge of me ought to have prevented yoa from committing inch an error. You farther state that Mr. Stark'e two houses coat over £3000. and that you valued them at £3200. This you confirm upon oath. Now, there appeus to me do excuse for this error, as l am aware that you had the lame privilege extended to you before going to Wellington as I availed myself of, namely, access to the architect's boons and voucher*. Whatever 1 consider to be my duty I uiually endeavour to do without respect of persons, and as I now feel it my duty to draw public attention, and the attention of the Government, to this matter. I hope you will acquit me of being actuated by any unworthy motives. 1 have thought it due in fairness to send you this notice of my intention. —Yours, &c, Wμ. Philcox. Mr. Alison asked that as his counsel was not present, Mr. Philoox should be ordered to appear at the inquiry, to be examined whenever he was required. Mr. Philcox had endeavoured by every means in his power of a malicious and vindictive kind to injure him, and he had acted the part of a coward in slandering him throughout the whole length and breadth of New Zealand,, without the slightest justification, simply because he had a corrupt mind himself. It was entirely through him that this double inquiry had been held. He asked that he should be in attendance, to be examined after Mr. Mitohelson had given his evidence. He was a slanderer and a ooward, and was unworthy of any respeot. . The Chairman said Mr. Aheon was abusing the latitude allowed by the Commissioners, in using such language, and if he did that, they would have to silence him altogether. Mr* Alison apologised for using the words he had, though they were perfectly true. The Chairman said the Commissioners were quite willing to grant Mr, Alison's request that Mr. Philoox should be in attendance when required. Mr. Philoox was therefore informed that he must be in attendance for re-examination. Mr. Kingsford gave evidence as to offers made to him of Mr. Stark's property, and as to his ideas respecting the value of property then. He was not a land valuer. Mr. George Brown, land agent, also gave evidence that he was instructed by Mr. Stark to offer the block of 20 acres for £7500 in February, 1885. That inoluded all outbuildings and improvements, Mr. A. Heather said some of Stark's property was offered to him two summers ago by Mr. T. L. White. The quantity he was offered was 10 acres, and he understood Mr. White to value it at about £4000. The offer was made on the understanding of witness exchanging bis property at Mount Eden. Mr. Gascoigne, residing at the North Shore, said Mr. Hammond's property of 3* acres was offered him for £800 in the early part of the summer of 1885. After the adjournment Mr Laishley appeared for the Vigilance Committee in place of Mr. Theo. Cooper. Hβ said before the BrooeeJlpgß were ro.Bu.aed be ijiflbed to say

a few words with respeot to an incident which he understood had transpired in the morning. He referred to his application for a subpoena for Sir Julias Vogel, in which it was mentioned that his bank book would also be applied for. He wished to state that whether the application was a proper one or not he made it on express instruotions from the committee. He did not mistake or misconceive his instructions in any way, and he wished that to be made perfectly clear. Mr. James Frater, land agent, said in Maroh, 1885, Mr. Stark authorised him to sell his house, lodge, stables, outbuildings, and 10 acres of land for £4000, or 20 acres for £6000. He had made offers for the pro* perty which were not accepted. Mr. F. Hull, land agent, said he offered land opposite Mr. Stark's on the Lake Road in Maroh, 1884, and he gave his estimate of the value of the various properties in the neighbourhood. He had sold small portions at the rate of about £450 an acre. Mr, Benjamin Tanner said he was town clerk at Devonport, and had been valuer, but lately the Government valuation, made by Mr. Seaman, had been accepted. He had valued from 1883 to 1885. Hβ produoed the ratebook, and eaid,'the property of Mr. Stark, of about 28£ acres, was rated at £15,600, at the last valuation by Mr. Seaman in 1886. The previous valuation, made by him. self, oommenoing in April, 1883, was £3000 That was set down in the book as for 30 acres. That valuation remained until the end of 18S5. The house was built when that valuation was made. By Mr. O'Meagher: He had never intentionally undervalued either Mr. Stark's or Mr. Alison's property. He knew Mr. Alison as aland speculator, but had never known him engaged in any bogus speculations or having done anything dishonourable in his transactions. He was a well-known man, but the word " notorious" oould not be applied to him in any other sense. Witness also gave evidence as to the increase in the ratable value of property in Devonport year by year from ISSO to the present time. It had doubled eaoh fresh valuation. By Mr. Laishley: When he made his valuation the rise in value had not wholly set in, Mr. Robert Duder, land agent, residing at North Shore, said he was a very old resident, and he gave his estimate of the value of various properties at Devonport. By Mr. Seaman: You first valued my property at Hastings at £12,000, and, after three hours' conversation, I brought you down to £6000. When you valued it in allotments I did not think that was the proper way to value it. By Mr. Laishley: He should not have thought of offering £16,000 for Mr. Stark 'e property in 1885. He was offered what he understood was the whole blook of Mr. Stark's property early in 1885 for £7500. No doubt Mr. Seaman's valuations were "tiptop." By Mr. O'Meagher : He did not think it was 10 acres and a house whioh was offered him for £7500, but the whole block. By the Chairman : He did not know that Mr. Seaman made his valuations expecting to be reduced, but they were certainly very high. He never appealed, but agreed to them under protest. By Mr. Seaman : When he agreed to £6000, after getting it brought down from £12,000, he still thought it was ridiculously high. This concluded the evidence. The witnesses to be called to-day are Messrs. Hammond, Burgess, Mitchelson, Alison, Brewer, and Seaman,