HOW IT WAS DONE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXIV, Issue 8927, 16 December 1887, Page 5

HOW IT WAS DONE.

THE POINT RESOLUTION PURCHASE. THE CORRESPONDENCE. "DECIDEDLY CURIOUS." MR. BREWER AS A DIPLOMATIST. A PEEP BEHIND THE SCENES. MR. KISSLING'S "BUSINESS TRANSACTION."

[BY TKLEGBAPH.—-SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT.]

Wellington, Thursday. I have been enabled to get a glanoe at some of the correspondence in this remark* able busineee of the Point Resolution purchase, and it fully justifies Sir George Grey's comment, expressed some time ago that it is deoidedly *' ourioua." It illustrates an important phase of the negotiations, and will enable the Auckland public to form a more aoourate judgment as to the transaction and the conduct of the several parties concerned.

MR. KISSLING DEFINES HIS POSITION. The firat letter is from Mr. Q. 8. Kissling to Mr. Brewer, dated November 20, ISSS. He says :—" Referring to our conversation this morning, I now beg to state what 1 understand is the position of our negotiations with regard to Point Resolution. The Government have taken the whole of my property for which they are to pay £6000 for freehold and leasehold interests. Of this sum 1 am to receive £5365, and the truetees £632 ; total, £6000. The Government undertakes to hand me back as a freehold, portion of the property not required by them, say about three and a-half acres, for which I am to pay them £425 ; the total cost of compensation will, therefore, be £1740. Should it be found in settlement with the trustees that the Government have to pay a larger sum than £632 for their freehold interest, I undertake to reimburse them the excess. It is understood that the boundary of my property and the forts is the fonce erected by the Government."

CURIOUS POINTS. The curious point iu this letter is that, oa the 20th November, 18S5, Mr. Kissliug should write to Mr. Brewer that the Government are to pay £6000 for the " freehold and leasehold interests," of which he was to receive £5368. At that date Mr. Kissling had no " freehold" interest in the block, and no authority or status to offer or accept terms regarding it. The second curious point is that the price to be given to the trustees, who really held the freehold, namely £632, is arrived at without the slightest reference to or consulting with those gentlemen, though they ought to have been the principals in such a negotiation.

THE ARRANGEMENT. On the same day, JNoTeinber 2s, ISSS, when Mr. Brewer and Mr. Kiealing had come to the arrangement above described, which appears to have been satisfactory to that gentleman, Mr, Brewer writes the following letter to Mr.Cochrane,secretary to the General Trustee Board, dated Public Works Office, Auckland, November, 20, 18S5. The letter is headed, " The land required for battery at Point Resolution," and although he had that very day arranged that three and a-half acres of the land should be handed back to Mr. Kissling in freehold, the curious point here is that the first sentence of the letter reads thus:—"l am directed by the hon. Defence Minister to state that it is proposed to take the whole of the land at present in the occupation of Mr. G. A. Kisaliug;" that is to say, according to the heading of the letter, the land being required for the battery. Mr. Brewer goes on to say:—"The property being let for such a long term to that gentleman at a nominal rental, the principal part of the compensation money will be awarded to him. Aβ, however, the Government: wish your Board to be treated with every consideration, I am requested to state that the sum of £632 will be awarded for your interest. Will you please let me know at your earliest convenience if you accept this offer, so that arrange* ments can be made for paying over the money ? If you do not accept, the case will have to go to the Supreme Court."

HOW AWARDS ARE MADE AND SETTLED. The curious point iu this extract from Mr. Brewer's letter is that he threatened the trustees with an appeal to the Supreme Court when Mr. Klisling had that very day written him:—" tihould it be found, in settling with the trustees, that the Government have to pay a larger turn than £632 for their freehold interest, I undertake to reimburse them the excess,"—and what earthly interest had Mr. Brewer in sparing Mr. Kiseling from the melancholy contingency of reimbursing the excess. At this poins the correspondence becomes not only curious but interesting. Mr. Brewer also states that the principal part of the compensation mouey will bo awarded to Mr. Kiesling. When was the award made ? By what Court; and who made it ?

THE LAND 18 SOLD : ALSO THE TRCSTKS3. On December 4, 18S5, Mr. Cochrane replies to Mr. Brewer, acknowledging receipt of hie letter stuting that the Government proposed to take the whole of the land in the occupation of Mr. G. W. Kissling, at Point Resolution, for a battery, and intimating the Board's acceptance of the offer of £632. The trustees closed with the offer evidently under the impression that the whole of the land was being taken for defence purposes. This prompt action of the trustees, I understand, was subsequently explained by Mr. Upton, namely, that a great national crisis having arisen,' the contingency of war, the trustees felt that it was duty to eurrender for public defence land which had been given to them as a gift of the public MB. BREWKS BECOUNTd HIS DIPLOMATIC

TRIUMPHS. On 21st November Mr. Brewer writes to Mr. O'Conor, Undersecretary of Public Works, as follows :—" When the Hon. Defence Minister was in Auckland Mr. Kisaling went to him, taking * plan of his property, and explaining everything. The claim made by Mr. Kissling was £2500 for the pieoe taken, but this was understood to inolude the Church trustees' interest as well. The property belongs to the latter, but is let on a long lease (48 years to run) at a nominal rental. The Minister sent for me and instructed me to settle for the property for less than the sum claimed if possible, but to give even that sooner than take the case to Court. I had several interviews with Mr. Klssling, but he would not take lesH. I discovered, however, that he was anxious to get the freehold property. Now, the trustees cannot sell, although they would like to. I suggested that the Government might be asked to take it and hand back the portion not required, but that he would have to reduce his demand very much. He agreed to this, and I think I shall settle the whole matter for £1750. lam only waiting a reply from the trustees. This would be a saving of £750. The coat of the whole property will be £6000, and I have a written undertaking from Mr. Killing that he will give the Government £4250 for the portion not required. The property is a very choice one, in fact one of the prettiest spots in Auckland. There are many wealthy members who would not consider the price if they could get such a place. If we took the case to Court we should certainly lose, so if we settle the matter on the proposed basis we shall be well out of an awkward claim."

MORE CUBIOUS POINTS. The curious points in the letter are: (1) That Mr. Brewer had discovered that Mr. Kissling was very anxious to get the freehold ; (2) that though he, on the previous day, had threatened the trustees with an appeal to the Supreme Court if they did not accept his offer, or the "award," to speak by the card, he, in his letter written 24 hours after that incident, expresses his belief that " if we took the case into Court we should certainly lose it," and intimates to Mr. O'Couor that the Defence Minister haa instrncted him to close for the sum demanded, "sooner than take the case into Court." When and how did he learn that the trustees would like to sell ? THE BISHOP'S LETTER, Bishop Cowie's letter in regard to the transaction cornea next in the correspondence. He Bays on that point the trustees had not a choice in the matter. It is, however, an important consideration (1) whether the Government had a right to take from St. Stephen's estate more land than was needed for defence purposes, and (2) whether they had a right to sell land so taken. MB. BREWER'S DIPLOMACY RECEIVES MINISTERIAL APPROVAL.

A telegram from Major Gudgeon, in reply to Mr. Brewer's letter, states that " Mr Ballance strongly approves of your action in this matter, , !

HOW THE LAND WAS TAKEN. We now oome to the proclamation taking the land for defence purposes. The heading of the proclamation laid before the Governor for signature was "Land Taken for construction of defence works at Point Resolution, in the Borongh of Parnell, suburbs of Auckland." It is dated Wellington, May 28, 1886. His Excellency the Governor is respectfully advised to sign the accompanying proclamation taking land for the construction of defence worke at Point Resolution, in the Borough of Parnell, suburbs of Auckland. It is nlgned by Mr. K Richardson, Minister of Publio Works. The affair is then fixed up by a clause in the Special Powers and Contracts Act of last session, as follows :—" The land described in theseoond columnhaving inter alia been taken by the Government for defence works at Point Resolution by a proclamation in the New Zealand Gazette, No. 32, of 1886, and being in excess of the area required for defonce purposes, it is desirable to sell it to Frances Catherine Ktseling, wife of George Frederick Kiasling, of Auckland, etc."

A COINCIDENCE. By the strange irony of fate, it became the duty of Mr Kiesling's brother, as a Government official, to issue a certificate of title to the laud under the Land Transfer Aofc fto his sister-in-law. ViIRY ODD. It will be seen that the phrase need in the proclamation as "being in excess of area now required for defence purposes." So far as the correspondence goes, it shows that the whole area taken was never taken in reality for defence purposes, but that at tha very outset the essence of the agreement wan that some 34 acres were to be handed back in freehold to Mr. Kiesling, he being bound in a written undertaking to purchase the land at the figure named.

A BDSINKSS TRANSACTION. Bishop Cowie in his letter says that Mr Kissling's aotion was a business transaction. No one can rise from a perusal of the correspondence without heartily endorsing the worthy Bishop's verdict.