THE POLHILL GULLY RIFLE RANGE.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1056, 26 May 1892, Page 37

THE POLHILL GULLY RIFLE RANGE.

REPORT OP THE ROYAL COMMISSION. The Commissioners appointed to investigate the whole circumstances connected with the purchase of land in Polbili Gully for the purposes of a rifle range forwarded their report to the Acting-Governor. His Excellency has since returned it to the Government. The report is as follows : To His Excellency Sir James Prendergast, Knight, Chief Jnstioe, the Administrator of the Government of the, Colony of New Zealand. Sir, 1. Although the Commission with which your Excellency has honoured us is dated the 12th day of Abril last, it was not placed in our hands until the 4th day of the present month. S.nce then we have mot every day, and have taken evidence in the presence ot a number of the parties interested in the result of the enquiry and the representatives of the press. We have visited and thoroughly examined fcbe ground at Polhill Gully, and the long rifle range at Eva is Bay ; have inspected maps, papers aud correspondence; and have now the honour to report upon the greater part of the S 3 points referred to us with reference to “all the circumstances connected with the proposal to purchase, and the negotiations incident to the purchase of, a certain block of land situate in or adjacent to the City of Wellington, known as the Polhill Gully rifle range.” 2. We have nothing definite to report in answer to the first question that appears in our instructions, a 9 to “ the names of the parties who made the proposal to the Government to purchase the said rifle range, and the date of such proposal,” as the whole business as it comes bhf.ire us evidently originated in unrecorded conversations, of which, after the lapse of two years, no very clear account can ho gathered. 3. From the evidence which accompanies the report it will be saen that abont three months before the 25th day of July, 1890, Mr Atkinson, of the firm of Meters Kirk and Atkinson, eo ioitors, of the City of Wellington, called on Captsin Humfrey, then Under-Secretary for Defence, with reference to the Government giving up a small portion of their original lease, and also had a conversation with him on the subject of purchasing the Polhill Gully rifla range. After this conversation Mr Atkinson was conducted by the Undersecretary to Captain Russell, then Minister of Defence, with whom the subject was also discussed, but nothing definite appears to have re.ulted from tint interview. Some two or three months later Air Kirk his partner, called upon the Under-Secretary for Defence, with the result that on the 25th day of July Alessrs Kirk and Atkinson received from the Defence Department a letter proposing to treat with them as agents for the purchase, and informing them that the Government was prepared to give for, the blook required, estimated to contain some 44 acres, a sum not excs-i Mug £3OOO. 4 From the evidence of Mr Kirk and Captain Humfrey, it appe r* that after the r ceipt of this letter several un o-orded conversations took plaoo beeweaa these two gentlemen, with the result that twenty.six days after that letter had been written Messrs Kirk aud Atkinson forwarded a letter to the Under-Seoretary for Defence proposing to sell to the Government 37 acres of the required land for the sum of £3OOO, or so mueh of the 37 acres as might be purchased without any great difficulty ; and, whether the purchase of the required biook was completed or not, it was ultimately stipulated that Messrs Kirk and Atkinson should be paid for all that was purchased at the rate of £Bl per acre. 5. At this somewhat late stage Mr Maekay, the Native Land Commissioner, appears to have been consulted as to the value pf the land. Mr Maekay assented to

the value which the Government, through Captaiu Hurofrry, had proposed in the latter’s first letter to Alessis Kirk aud Atkinson. Mr Msckay’s valuation was, however, apparently based upon the property tax valuation of the laud made in ISBB, but evidently without any knowledge of the price at which the land cc-uld be purchased from the Native owners. The Solicitor-General was also consulted as to the agreement with Messrs Kirk and Atkinson, and proposed several amendments,which amendments Ales rs Kirk and Atkinson accepted. 6. No expert evidence was taken or sought for “as to the auitabi ity of tho site for Volunteer purposes ” prior to these engagements, as Captain Humfrey informs your Commissioners that, as a military raao, he is himself an expert, and therefore thought it unnecessary to soek outside advice on that subjpet. 7. We find no “ good and sufficient reasons why the land was nob taken under the Public Works Act.” We cannnot understand why, when consulted by the Defence Department, the opinion of tho Solicitor-General, that “it would have been preferable for the Government itself to have taken the land uudor the Public Works Act,” was not acted upon even st that stage of the negotiations. 8. As the Uudor-SecreUry, in his letter of the 25tli day of July, written with the consent of the Defencs Mini-tor, contemplated an expenditure of £3OOO, a considerable portion or all of which would probably be required within the financial year, there appears to your Gominissioncrs no apparent reason why that sum should not have been placed ou the Supplementary Estimates for the current financial year before the House of Representatives closed its session on the 17th day of September, IS9O. 9. No agents appear at any time to have been employed on behalf of the Government to effect the purchase.” The first letter upon the subject which we find on record, written by tho Uuder-decretary for Defence to Alessrs Kirk and Atkinson, distinctly included the condition that that firm should act as agents, and supplied them with information which should have been

given only to an agent for the Government. Captain Bussell, even so late as the 20th day of August, 1891, judging from certain remarks made by him in tho House of Representatives on that day, as recorded in Hansard, was evidently under thoimpression that Messrs Kirk and Atkinson were acting as agents and not as principal vendors ; but throughout the recorded correspondence, and throughout their evidence before the Commission, Messrs Kirk and Atkinson clearly and consistently deny that they ever acted or were ever willing to act in any other capacity than that of principal vendors. Both the letters of the Undersecretary for Defence and those of Alessrs Kirk and Atkinson quote the “ Minister of Defence ” as a consenting party to this c ange of agreement; but apparently Captain Russell was not himself aware that any such’altered agreement was being submitted to Messrs Kirk and Atkinson in his name, or was being sanctioned by hirn on the part of the Government. 10. It will be seen by'the evidence of Captain Humfrey that he considered that there was so little importance in the difference between an agent and a principal vendor in this transaction that he did not consult the Minister of Defence on the subject, although officially using his name as principal party to the agreement. 11. The evidence discloses that the average prioe of the land bought by Alessrs Kirk and Atkinson was £36 9s Id per acre, and, as it was sold by them to the Government at £3l per acre, there can be no doubt of the extremely disadvantageous oharaoter of the agreement entered into with that arm by the Defence Department. 12. As might have been expected from the nature of the agreement, the evidence proves, and our own examination leaves tu> doubt of the fact, that Mossra Kirk aui Atkinson have only purchased and transferred to the Government the cheapest and the roughest portion of the land. They do not appear to have had any special know ledge of the purchase of Native lands, aud had themselves to employ an agent to act on their behalf. On the other band, the Governmsnt had the Native Department with its export knowledge at command, and could have purchased the land required through that department quite as cheapiy as Messrs Kirk and Atkinson wer?

do, while the portion held by a syndicate prior to the negotiations could have been taken under tho Public Works Act. More especially does the action taken appear unjustifiable when it is remembered that it was impossible for any one other than the Government to purchase these lands until the Government restrictions under the Nativo Land Act were removed.

13. On the 25th day of July, 1890, Alessrs Kirk and Atkinson were not the registered owners of any portion of the land wliioh the Government proposed to purchase, but they claim to have had an interest in and control o\mr Section 1 of Block XVa., containing 4 acres 3 roods 31 perches, which was registered in the name of Mr J. R. ' Blair. For this the syndicate received from Alessrs Kirk and Atkinson £3OO on the 28th Febru. ary, 1591, leaving £looostill unpaid. Section 2 of the same block, containing G acres, was in the joint names of Rapana te Ohiro and Tamati Hapimana. For this Messrs Kirk and Atkinson appear to have paid £75 to each of the joint owners—to Rapana te Ohiro on the 13th February, 1891, and to Tamati Hapimana on the 10th August. Section 3, containing C acres 1 rood 5 perches, was in the joint names of Ihaka te JLlou and Tamiora Love, who, on the 15th February, 1892, are shown to have received from Alessrs Kirk and Atkinson the sums of £7B 10s and £IOO respectively. Seotion 6, containing 8 acres 3 roods 29 parches, was in tbo name of Tamati Wiretnu te Wero, for which he appears to have received, on the 24th October, 1890, the sum of £225 from Molars Kirk and Atkinson. This account of moneys paid by them, obtained from Messrs Ki'k and Atkinson, corresponds with the figures procured fiorn the Registrar of Deeds in Wellington. 14. From this statement it will be seen that 4 acres 3 roods 31 perches of land purchased by Messrs Kirk and Atkinson from the syndicate wa3 paid for at the exceptionally high price of £BO 183 3d per acre, being more than three times as much as the average price paid by the same firm to the Alaoris for land of a similar character. This syndicate consisted of four per ons—Alessrs J. R. Blair, A. 0. O’Donahoo (surveyor), R. C. Kirk,

and E. T. Atkinson. The same land was purchased from Mohi Parai and Te Awe Parai by the syndicate on the 6th June and 4th July in the preceding year for £l2O. 15. But, apart from the handsome profit derived by Messrs Kirk and Atkinson. as members of the syndicate, and admitting that the full amount stated by them was paid to the reveral vendors, the account stands thus : Buying price of 26 acres and 25 perches purchased by Messrs Kirk and Atkinson, £953 10s; selling price of 26 sores 25 parches sold by Messrs Kirk and Atkinson to the Government, £2llß 13s Id, thus shoeing that the Defence Department engaged to pay Messrs Kirk aud Atkinson for the 26 acres 25 perches no less than £1165 3i Id more than the sum for which they purchased it. 16. Your Commissioners have reason to believe that all necessary rights to use the range might have been secured for some years to come without any such serious outlay ; whilst, even now, such a right has not been obtained by the costly purchases made from Alessi’3 Kirk and Atkinson. Nor would such a right have been obtained if the whole 37 acres had been purchased, as even then the Government would have secured no land on the right hand side of the long range, without which that range can only be used by permission of the occupier of the town reserve which abuts upon it. 17. With regard to the question as to whether any portion of the land acquired by VI- ssi-s Kirk and Atkinson for Government bad been offered by that firm to other parties .-it a large advance on the original purchase money, the evidence goes to show that Messrs Kirk aud Atkinson have not oflered any portion of the laud purchased by them f,.r the Government to any other person. 13. Lastly, coming to the important practical question, “ Whether, looking at the whole of tho circumstances connected with the rifle range, it is desirable in the public interest that the balance of tho lands, it any, should be acquired, an 1 the purchase formally completed ?” your Commusiooers find that tho two ranges in Polbili Gully are pronounced by those best qualified to give an opinion to have little to recommend them as rifle ranges except their proximity to the eity, which renders them ennvienent for Yulqqfceer practice and class firing ; and, to

make them secure against any possible accidents, further land would have to be purchased ; even now it is found necessary to use for modem rifles and for men qualifying for prize-firiug a much better site -which exists at Evans Bay, within a mile and a quarter of the present tramway terminus. A numerously-sigaed petition ha 3 also been presented, which shows that the surrounding residents most strongly objaefc to the future use of these ranges, as dangerous to life end detrimental to the value of property in the locality. The owner of the land behind the targets of the long range has also sent in a strong protest against tho future use of this range, as ha intends to subdivide soma of hi 3 land for building sites. A steady increase of population in the locality adds intensity and importance to all these objections. It therefore it appears to your Commissioners that it is not desirable to incur any avoidable further outlay on tho purchase of the Polhill Guily rifle range. 19. With this report we forward the evidence of twenty-three witnesses examined by U 3, a petition, and some letters addressed to the CommiSiioners, and a sketch map of the ground, on which the lines of what are known as the long and short ranges are drawn in black ; tho 26 tores purchased from Alessrs Kirk an J Atkinson are coloured red, the 10£ acres of the proposed block which have not been purchased are coloured yellow, and the unsecured reserve adjoining the long range is shown in green. We respectfully submit to your Excellency this our report. Witness our hands and seals, this 17th day of Alay, 1892. Alfred Saunders, Chairman. T. Kennedy Macdonald. John H. Baker,

How a bus’ness man would buy a rifle range no business man requires to be told. How the Defence Department set about buying a rifle range in 1890 the Polhill Gully Commission tell 3us in another c lumn. The Department began by deciding upon a plan which could only have given them an incomplete range. They had at their command the services of the Native Land Purchase Department, and the provisions of the Public Works Act, and they were the only people in a positiou to buy the Native land forming the greater part of the incomplete range they had decided upon, all other buyers being shut but by the Crown’s restriction. They occupied a commanding position and retreated from it, preferring to deal with a private firm of lawyers. These gentlemen they treated first as agents and then as principal vendors, apparently not being aware that there was any important difference between the two ; and in dealing with them they agreed to pay even if the whole of the land for the incomplete range was not forthcoming. As for the price, they called in an expert valuer after the price had been agreed upon, and about his basis of value they seem to have made no enquiry at all They ended by getting only 26 acres of the whole 37, which would not have been enough, and the private firm of lawyers made L 1165 3s Id out of them. The upshot of the matter is that the avhole of the purchase money was wasted, the range being not only incomplete, hut, for lack of ordinary business precautions at the proper time, impossible. Such is the story of incompetence and wasteful expenditure told in measured language, and cold, restrained , judicial style by the Commissioners. The only persons who do not appear as blunderers in the story are Messrs Kirk and Atkinson. They, on the contrary, shine as the proud possessors of considerable acumen, who have turned their talent to substantial account. Had the Defence Department been ruled in 1890 by ordinary sagacity, and had the relative of the Premier been restrained by self-respect from entering into pecuniary transactions of that-kind with the Administration, the story of the Polhill Gully rifle range might not have required to be written. Having been written, it will not be easily forgotten, except by those who are in the habit of objecting to Royal Commissions, on principle.

The admission that certain members of the Atkinson Government stonewalled the report of the Public Accounts Committee is as complete a justification of the appointment of the Royal Commission of enquiry into the Polhill Gully purchase as could be desired. That fact supplies the strongest possible reason for the appointment. The closest enquiry would fail to find any others, even if conducted by the most violent of partisans. It is suggested that the Public Accounts Committee ought to have placed itself once more at the mercy of obstruction, before taking a course which would have ended in further obstruction in the House. That suggestion is, on the face of it, either simply foolish or prompted by regret that this scandal, about which the country was entitled to get the whole truth promptly, was ever reported upon at all. The choice between mere folly and gross hypocrisy we leave to the newspaper responsible for the suggestion. What is certain i 3 that the severe condemnation of the Polhill Gully transaction, which was dragged out of it, was accompanied by the advocacy of a course which, had it been followed, would, by effectually preventing a report at al ! ,have saved everybody the trouble of condemnatory criticism. f No one, of course, requires to be told that an opponent of a Government does hob like to be forced to severely condemn opponents of that Government. But it is not wise to let everyone know how

severely the inconvenience is felt. N*r is it wise to whittle away any of the condemnation after it h;is been made. For instance, after writing that “ it is difficult to find words strong enough to condemn the action of the late Ministry,” it does not - look well to declare “that the excuse of Midshipman Easy’s wet nurse is appos’te.” We thought everybody knew that the moral of that lady’s story is that under certain circumstances there can be no question of degree. It is a bad thing to confuse principles and degrees One journal thinks otherwise. It does not mind L3OOO with a “sporting offer,” but L 17,000 is something quite different. Will this authority declare that in a Court of J ustice the amount makes the crime ? Certainly, this is the authority which makes the Defence Department of the Grey Government responsible for the Stark purchase. Now, that purchase was made by the Public Works Department of the Stout-Vogel Administration. Ncr is the difference in the amount of the money involved the only difference between that transaction and the Polhill Gully purchase. The war scare of 1885 made the Stark purchase imperative. There was no such immediate necessity for the transaction of 1890. Moreover, at the time of the former the power under the Public Works Act had not been extended to land required for defence purposes. The Department had to rely on negociations for securing land known to he imperatively required ; and it employed a valuer of good repute, who upheld his valuation. There are other differences which we need nob now insist upon, as they are evident. We will, therefore, conclude by- asking a question. If the Polhill Gully range had been acquired by the present Government at a price enabling Messrs Treadwell and Staffoi'd to make 55 per cent on L2IOO by means of what might be termed a “ sporting offer,” would the British vocabulary have been equal to the strain put upon it by the opposition press of the Empire City ?

We answer our own question without hesitation. Of course the British volcabulary would have broken down under the strain of Opposition criticism if the present Government had bought the Range in the manner so admirably described by the Commission. No one can doubt that who has observed their methods. They invent, they distort facts, they impute motives in the most reckless and gratuitous way. In the latter evil art the Post holds a commanding lead, gained by a series of exploits without parallel in this Colony. The last and worst of these was perpetrated on Thursday evening, at the expense of the Premier, in an article dealing with the Booth question. Not content with criticising the Premier’s offer to General Booth, which he has a perfect right to do on condition that he understands it, which by the way at present he certainly does not, the writer imputes to him the most dishonourable motives —a thing no writer has any right to do without the fullest justification. But beyond the “hint ” of a correspondent of some other paper, for one of these imputations, the Avorse of the two, no sort of justification was attempted. The whole business is a deliberate invention for the pui’pose of discrediting a political opponent. To such a state of degradation has political criticism descended that every rule of personal courtesy is openly violated. The Post asserted the other day, in a leading article on the Polhill Gully Commission, that when writing seven months ago it had a printed copy before it of the evidence taken before the Public Accounts Committee. There must be some mistake. The evidence taken before the Public Accounts Committee never was printed. Certain correspondence which took place between Messrs Kirk and Atkinson and the Government was printed for the information of the committee, but. not one word of the evidence taken fcy the shorthand writers ever saw the printer. In fact, it was not available for the use of the Royal Commission, and was never seen by them. The Public Accounts Committee never having reported upon the matter, the evidence was locked away by the officers of the House of Representatives, and, without direction by the House, could nob be made available. As the House was not in session, this was, of course, im possible.

The Lyttelton Times thus concludes an article on the subject " The Commission has probably been one of the least expensive of modern times, but it baa done its work

promptly and thoroughly well. The members very boldly and very properly decided to hold the enquiry and collect their evidence in public. They knew that party interests would bo at work to misrepresent all they did, and they wisely chose to report facts and figures rather than opinions. Henceforth no one will ask how the Minister for Defence could dare to say in the Hou3e of Representatives that his predecessor had been ‘ a handsome figurehead of his department,’ or why he so promptly dismissed an Under-Secretary who had learned to treat his responsible chief not as an authority to be consulted in the wholesale expenditure of public money, but as a mere namo to be officially quoted at the sweet will of his subordinates. The Commissioners have, of course, no power to recover the public money whioh has been wasted, but their report of the facts and evidence will probably prevent the public interest being again committed to the same easy-going authorities, and will certainly greatly strengthen the hands of the present Minister for Defence in the aotion he has taken to expose the past and protect the future. It is only by fearless publicity that we can hope to proteoc the public interest from designing cupidity, pompous incapacity and indolent neglect. It is worth far more trouble and expense than have been incurred over this Commission to compel all officials and all would-be absorbers of public money to constantly bear in mind that what is done by them in secret may, through the searching light of a Royal Commission, ba at any time proclaimed from the housetop.”