THE STARK PURCHASE INQUIRY.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXIII, Issue 7789, 8 November 1886, Page 5

THE STARK PURCHASE INQUIRY.

KEPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS. [from ocr OWN correspondent.] Wellington, Saturday. The report of the Commissioners has been forwarded to the Government. They find that there has been no evidence of conspiracy. The following is the essential feature of the repoart — Mr. Stark had been endeavouring to sell portions of the block at comparatively low prices since June, 1884, through various agents, and 'in February, 1885, he placed the whole block in Mr. Brown's hands for sale for £7500, and at that time the Government could doubtless have obtained it for that amount had they employed a private agent to secure it but in April, 1885. when they had entered upon the land to survey the site for the battery, Mr. Stark withdrew it from private sale, saying the Government were going to take it, and that he now expected to get £20,000 for it. We oonsider : that the price paid for the land was in excess of its value, but are of opinion that there was no irregularity in the mode of conducting or completing the purchase. The Minister for Public Works was guided by the opinions of the usual officers of the department, whioh he has stated was confirmed by other inquiries he had made, and Mr. Brewer, the land purchase officer, who had only recently arrived in the district, was guided by the property tax valuators, and we consider his conduct throughout the negotiations was quite free from blame. We entirely acquit Mr. Seaman of any complicity in any attempt to defraud the Government, and we consider that his excessive valuation, which he expected Mr. Stark to object to, was prompted by his desire to serve the interest? of his department. It is impossible to forecast what might have resulted from an appeal to a Compensation Court. The - Commission declined to award costs to Messrs. Alison and Seaman for attending to defend themselves from allegations made against them, leaving it to the Government to decide whether their officers are entitled to expenses inourred in attending the inquiry. The Press Association supply the following extract from the report : We lost no opportunity during the inquiry of impressing on the minds of the community that we were prepared to examine not only all witnesses suggested by the parties concerned, but to summon any persons whose names might ba mentioned to us as able to furnish information on matters we had to investigate. Fifty witnesses have givon evidence on oath, and wa have permitted the utmost latitude In their examination by counsel or other persons who desired to question them. Counsol for the so-called Vigilance Committee requested that Sir Julius Vogel, Mr. Richardson, and Mr. Sperry should be called to give evidence, but as wo had no power to call witnesses residing over 200 miles from the place of sitting, and as we had been informed that Ministers could not then leave Wellington, but the place of the Commission could if necessary be extended to Wellington, we replied that we should be prepared to adjourn and continue there, if counsel could attend himself or be represented by other counsel. Counsel, however, did not press this. Asa guide to points to be inquired into, we had the evidence taken before the Public Works Committee of the Home of ltepresentatives, Mr. Mltchelson's letter to the Premier on 7th September, the list of names furnished by coun«el for Vigilance Committee, and the petition prepared by the said committee, which had been signed by a large number of Auckland residents and forwarded to the General Assembly. Mr. Mitchelson stated in his letter there was no doubt in his mind but there had been a conspiracy to defraud the Government, and petitioners added their belief that if a commission were held on the spot, evidence could be supplied to show that such conspiracy had boon entered into. They have, however, in our opinion, failed to sustain the allegation by the evideuco of any person that has been brought to give evidence before us, and Mr. Mitchelson has admitted that his suspicions have not been substantiated, and he regrets that he ever brought them forward. Mr. Mitchelson, in his letter and also in his evidence, stated that rumours were floating about injurious to the characters of two Ministers of the CrowD, and, though not believing them himself, thought it desirable that the matter should be cleared up by the appointment of a Commission. Mr. Chambers, hon. secretary of the Vigilance Committee, gave form to these rumours by declaring his belief that Sir Julius Vogel had been bribed by Stark. On hearing his evidence, we declared that, if a shadow of evidence could be brought forward in its support, we would urge Ministers to come up to meet It. No such evidence has been forthcoming, and we consider it a baseless nod malevolent suspicion unworthy of any further notice Numerous local agents and other authorities who have been examined as to the, value of property differ very much in their estimates, but subjoined are the names and cash valuations of some of them who appear to us to be the most reliable William Altken, £15.000 ; Captain Beore, £12,000 to £14,000 ; B. Tanner, £0000, and with improvements, £13,000; J. Bond, £12,000 ; K. W. Alison, value of his offer on terms, £16,000—cash, £11.000 ; F. G. KwingtOD, £10,000; O. Mays, £10.009; J. Dacre, £9300; T. Melville, £9000 ; D. Ooldie £9000—less than Government paid. £8100 , C. Williamson, £8000. As these experts differ so materially in their valuation, we find it impossible to fix definitely the exact value of the land.