THE POINT RESOLUTION CASE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXV, Issue 9186, 16 October 1888, Page 3

THE POINT RESOLUTION CASE.

CLOSE OF THE ENQUIRY. The Royal Commission appointed by the Governor to enquire into the taking of land at Point Resolution resumed its sittings yesterday. Dr. Giles, R.M., and Colonel Roberts were the commissioners. Mr. E. Mahony -appeared on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. • Kissling, Mr. E. Hesketh for the Trust Board, and Mr. \V. J. Napier for the children and others interested in the conservation of the trust. Air. Hesketh addressed the commissioners, and said he was in a singular position, since he was neither plaintiff nor defendant, but as it were a middle man. Mr. Hesketh having referred to Mr. Waymouth's letter, said that x\lr. Upton had given him permission to state thab he did nob know from Mr. Waymouth's letter that Mr. Kissling was to get the freehold back; and he then proceeded to comment on the evidence. Supposing it were admitted that all of the trustees knew that the Government were not only going to take the land, but also to hand a portion back to Mr. Kissliug, wi. 5 did it all amount to ? Simply that the trustees believed that they were powerless in the matter. This explanation was, he submitted, clear, innocent, mid perfectly harmless. , The trustees recognised that from the Government came the land, and the Government took it, and could it be doubted that tho trustees were doing their duty when they left it to tne Government to say what compensation they should receive ? He was glad to say that there was not a tittle of evidence to support any suspicion of moral turpitude, conspiracy, or fraud ; and he hoped they would have from all parties a disavowal to impute anything of the kind in this matter. The evidence failed altogether to show a tinge of improper conduct on the pare of Mr. Brewer. M«". K.issling had done what any of them would do under the circumstances: when he saw that his-land was to be taken away, and he thought, " Now, what is the best bargain for me under the circumstances." He (Mr. Hesketh) submitted thab if any blame was to be attributed, the Government should bear thab blame. The trustees seemed to have taken a neutral position—a very high stand indeed, thab was nob without its dignity. A question which had exercised his jmnd during the inquiry was whether the Government tiietnselves knew that they were bound by the 14th section of the Act to hand back to the trustees that portion of the land that was not required. He thought they did nob, and he conbended thab bins was a sufficient answer for the trustees. There was not one act that they were blameable for, unless ib was that they could nob .see what bhe value of the land would be in 48 years hence, and he did nob know a more dilh'culb question than this to answer. The action of the trustees was satisfactorily explained by their ignorance of tho law. Mi - . Mahony said ib had been suggested that a wrong had been done in this matter ; but the evidence failed k ultogeUior to show this. There could havo beon no collusion between the Government and Mr. Kissling, since bhe matter arose oub of a lawsuit bebween bhein, and the Government had to pass an Act hurriedly to prevent Mr. Kissling from securing tho benefits of thab suit, whilst bhey then liad bo pay costs on the highest scale. Mr. Mahony argued to show thab no collusion had existed in the matter beiween Messrs. Brewer and Kissling, and said that if JEUOOO.was a very high value for the property, as asserted by several witnesses, ib followed thab Mr. Kissling had charged himself a big prico for the land he was getting. Again, as the £b'3'2 which was sjiven to the Board, arose out of this value, the it was evident, had got a high price for their interest. He .submitted that Mr. Kissling had acted throughout in a way that any sensible business man would have acted in. Mr. Mahony commented at some length upon tho evidence, and said that to sum up the position, the foundation of tho mistake in this matter, if there had been a mistake, was the overlooking of bhe terms of bhe Act of 1882. ,Tliis was the most that had been shown in this inquiry, and it therefore occurred to him, looking uu as an impartial observer, he di:l not see the necessity of holding a commission to elicit that. Mr. Kissling had been ready and willing to place hijnsolf before Parliament and give all the statements and papers in connection with the matter. They had ■seen it mentioned that some extra evidence would be adduced, but this had not proved to be the case ; no now evidence had beeu brought out. Mr. Kissling, however, was glad chat bhe Commission had been appointed, as ib had enabled him to place all the facts before the public ; and he (Mr. Mahony) thought Mr. Brewer and others would aLso bo glad of this opportunity. It was unfair that any should be thrown out that Mr. Kissling. by tho aid of somebody in authority, hud succeeded in wrongfully getting the freehold of the property. At the conclusion of the midday adjournmenb Mr. Napier addressed bhe Commissioners. He commenced by snowing that an institution whose endowments were in land was much moro favourably placed than one benefited by a money grant, and pointed out that ib frequently occurred that lands granted to institutions grew to a value which had been inconceivable to the donors. Land was imperishable and unchangeable, and therefore better than any other species of security. Why was there such a struggle in every on the part of all persons to acquire freeholds ? To corno down to tho present transaction, why was Mr. Kissling so desirous of acquiring the freehold of this property '! Simply because land was a commodity to which a lictitious and extraordinary value attached by reason of the exertions of the whole community. Ib was nob a question therefore as to whether the children had been benefited, but whether the permanent interests w> the trust had been benefited. Mr. Napier instanced bhe progress of this city in 45 years, and urged that further progress would bo made in the next 45 years. Ho conbended, therefore, thab in tho deprivabion of bhe unearned increment of the trust, a material injury had been done. He regretted bhat he could not say with his friend, Mr. HeskeUi, bhab all parbies had come oub of the inquiry with clean hands. Either some of the parties had exhibited an amount of ignorance that was positively inconceivable, and could hardly be found to exist in the mind of a Government official, or certainly in the absence of bhab ignorance bhero was moral burpitude of bhe grossest kind. He was loth bo take bhe latter view, but ib was difficult to suppose that ignorance was shown. Mr. Brewer had acted for 15 yemvs in his capacity as Land Purchase Officer, and he had told them thab ho had regulated his duty by the Public Works Act, and yet lie did nob know blie provisions of bliat Act. Mr. Napier quoted from Storey, an American writer of eminence, and contended that in the absence of any statutory power the Government acbed outside the law in this mabber. From the beginning falsehood was shown ; the Act was made uso of as a blind, and the Governor, Legislature, and bhe Minisbcr deceived by a culpable falsehood, lie submibted bhab the memorial to the Governor on the subject was false, inasmuch as 4 acres I rood and 14 perches did nob accurately represent the land taken for defence purposes, and the proclamation issued was also false in fact, though this was of course unknown to tho Governor. Furthermore, Mr. Buckley's proclamation in respect, of this land, also contained several falsehoods, as ib was nob the intention of tho Government bo take tho whole of the land for defence purposes. He submibted bliab, in real law, the land still belonged to tho Trust Board, and he contended thab there had been throughoub concealmenb of the facts on the part of Mr. Brewer. Mr. Napier went on bo comment on Mr. Brewer's action in bho mabber, and said bliab a wrong had been done nob only bo the trustees, bub also bo the public, by depriving blicin of a righlAvliich bhey possessed under the law of bidding for this land at a public auction. Mr. Napier contended thab Mr. Brewer was bo blame if he was ignorant of bhe law. There was sbrong evidence to show that there was a compact illegal in its inception and in the manner in which ib was carried out. Mr. Kissling's conducb in bhe mabber sbood in a bebber light than did that of Mr. Brewer. Ho (Mr. Nopier) claimed that the pecuniary interests of the Government would nob have suffered had the brustecs been made acquainted with the facts of the case. The excuse of Mr. Brewer, bhab the freeholder was not bo be taken into consideration, as Mr. Kissling held a leasehold, and bhab his arrangements should therefore be made with him, was not a good reason for his action in this respect. Mr. Kissling

could nob be acquitted of a desire to drive a good bargain by withholding information which ought to have been given to tne ! trustees. The whole of the proceedings seemed to have beon gone about with an amount of secrecy which was inconsistent with good faith. Mr. Kissling had said that the matter was the talk of the clubs, but this was a strange thing, as the intention to get a portion of the land back had not been mentioned in the Press, though a good deal had appeared in the newspapers with respect to the entry upon the land. The words of the Special Powers and Contracts Act of 1886 showed that the Legislature had been deceived ; and eome notice should also be taken of the manner in which the Bill was placed before the House. It was brought down within a day or two of th 9 end of the session, and was passed evidently on the good faith of the Government. Mr. Moss, in a letter, bore out this statement. Mr. Napier urged that the Act did not provide for compensation for the proximity of a battery ; compensation could only be allowed when land would not be permitted to be used, in order that the working of the battery might not be obstructed. It had been said that the Government were to blame ; but it was always found that any ofiicer who was guilty of wrongdoing blamed the authorities or the system, or some impersonal thing. He urged that the whole of the proceedings taken by the Government in this transaction should be annulled, and the property handed back to those who held it before it was entered into. Mr. Brewer briefly addressed the Commissioners, and defended himself from any charge of collusion or fraud in this matter, asserting that an honourable man would not have raised such a suspicion. Since the inquiry was commenced, he had been informed that had the Government offered back to the trustees at a stated price, the land nob required by them, the Board would nob have accepted it. Dr. Giles announced that the formal sittings of the Commission had terminated, and he expressed the thanks of the Commissioners, to the gentlemen who had given evidence, to the counsel, and to the Harbour Board for the use of the room.