THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. SATURDAY, OCTOBER 29, 1892.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXIX, Issue 9022, 29 October 1892, Page 4

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. SATURDAY, OCTOBER 29, 1892.

It will be remembered that in the Herald of the 15th June last we published particulars of a transaction, being the purchase of a part of the Pakiri Block by Mr. Louis Bright for the sum of £1000, and the levying by the Commissioner of Stamps (the Hon. Mr. Ballance) of native duty amounting to £330 upon the sale, being 10 per cent, on £3300 property tax valuation of the land as fixed by the Commissioner of Taxes—the Commissioner of Stamps refusing to accept duty on the amount of purchase money, though the land was bought in the open market for £1000. Mr. Bright, finding he could not get justice from the Stamp Commissioner, Mr. Ballance, and the Government putting every possible obstacle in the way of his getting the opinion of the Supreme Court upon the matter, petitioned the House of Representatives, putting before it in his petition the whole facts of the case, and showing very strong grounds for relief at the hands of the House. Previous to the presentation of the petition Mr. F. Lawry had asked the Premier in the House a question as to the duty imposed on Mr. Bright, and characterised it as a public scandal. The Premier said that the Government were making enquiries into the subject. Nothing more has been heard of this, question or the promised enquiries. Mr. Bright's petition, however, was according to the Parliamentary news by telegraph, presented by Mr. W. L. Rees on 17th August, but Mr. Bright has never had any official notice whatever that his petition has reached the House or the Petitions Committee, nor does he know to this day what has become of it, excepting that it was stated in the public press, among some items of Parliamentary news, that the petition had been referred by the Public Petitions Committee to the Government. If so, what a pitiabje farce ! A man fails to get anything approaching justice from a Minister of the Crown in a particular matter, and appeals to the final Court of his country, which is supposed to have an ear for, and adjust if possible, all wrongs brought before it in due form. This court then refers the matter back to the very person against whose decision the appeal to Parliament is made. As far as any official communication is concerned Mr. Bright, is absolutely in ignorance of the fate of his petition, and for all he knows it might as well be at the bottom of Cook's Straits. Surely it is, a gross injustice that matters should be shelved in this way

simply because a Minister chooses to maintain a position which he has' taken. up, and which position we are satisfied every right-thinking "man must look upon as entirely wrong—which the very Government of which that Minister is a member must acknowledge, and have acknowledged by their correspondence to be wrong. So much for Mr, Bright's petition, which apparently is consigned to some back pigeonhole in the archives of the Premier's office, and we suppose has as much chance of seeing the light again as a man who has suffered a great injustice has of having his wrong righted by a Liberal Government, who we do not hesitate to say have full powers to right this matter but will not. We have said that the Government has acknowledged by its correspondence that the valuation of the Commissioner is wrong, and we shall briefly refer to this correspondence. Mr. Bright, through his agent, wrote to the Land Department, offering the Government the land at £1850, and asking them to purchase it at that price under the provisions of the Land Act. The reply which he has received is as follows :— Department of Lands and Survey, Wellington, October 15, 1892. Sir,— reply to your letter of the sth inst. re Pakiri Block, I have to state, without entering into the question of purchase at length, that it would not pay the Government to take it at anything like the price quoted. It is not a block that could be recommended to the Board of Land Purchase.—l am, etc., A. Bakbon. So the land is worth £3300 for the purposes of assessing a 10 per cent. native duty upon it, but it is not worth, to the Government, anything like the price at which it is offered, viz., £1850, being about what it cost Mr. Bright, including his purchase money, £1000 ; duty paid by him, £330; rates paid by him, £126, and incidental expenses. We are curious to know what steps, if any, the Government intend to take in the matter of Mr. Bright's petition.

Since we published Mr. Upton's letter recommending that Freeman's Bay should be reclaimed and formed into a recreation ground, we have had a considerable amount of correspondence on the proposal. All who have written agree that the object is a most desirable one. But several argue that the cost would be too great, and that the Freeman's Bay sea.frontage will ultimately be required for businesses .which must have access to the harbour. Mr. W. Leys suggests that three separate pieces of ground in the western district should be purchased, which would give facilities for cricket and other games. The objection to this is that three separate allotments can never make a satisfactory park, as would a level stretch of thirty acres. We feel sure that if Freeman's Bay could be secured, it would be far more satisfactory than detached pieces of small extent. But at the same time, if it is found impracticable to obtain Freeman's Bay, Mr. Leys's proposal should not be lost sight of, because it is clearly the next best thing to be done. As to the harbour frontage, no doubt it will be valuable some day. But at present there is no demand for it. Ana if it is expedient that we should have harbour frontage for factories and other industries, surely also it is necessary that there should be some place where the public should have free access 1 to the harbour. The people of Auckland are supposed to have strong regard for the aesthetic, and they should also be .prepared to sacrifice something for public health and recreation. We surely cannot calmly contemplate girdling in the whole harbour front of the city with factories and workshops, not leaving a foot of land where people can go down to the water ? The real difficulty is no doubt the cost. We cannot expect the Harbour Board to be patriotic. They have adorned the harbour frontage with a palatial structure for office accommodation, and as a set-off they feel compelled to turn everything possible into cash. They will simply look at this proposal to make a park of Freeman's Bay in a monetary point of view. We are afraid it will be difficult to persuade them to regard the health and recreation of the inhabitants. In that case the whole burden would be thrown on the City Council, and that body has already to carry about as much as it can bear. But the steady pressure of public opinion does wonders, and if the object is "kept steadily in view," something may arise to facilitate the accomplishment of what would be a great improvement to the city.