N.P. Harbor Endowment.

Opunake Times, Volume III, Issue 156, 31 December 1895, Page 3

N.P. Harbor Endowment.

The Premier on Wednesday night telegraphed to Mr McGuire. After explaining that he did not object to Mr McGuire telegraphing to him, but that he objected to his making political capital out of the affair. He goes on:—

“ The Government, in the decision arrived at, have done nothing more for the New Plymouth Harbor Board than for any other harbor board in the colony. How your ignorance of the law passed last session could be construed to be an admission that the Government had plundered the New Plymouth bondholders I cannot imagine. Had the Government acted upon your advice given to me at Hawera four years ago, and also contained in a letter sent to Mr Ballance, to take advantage of the ignorace of the bondholders that the Board was in a position to make its default good and pay its interest, and under the circumstances buy the debentures, then the word plundering, or even a much stronger expression, might, with great force, have been applied. Your admission to me at our last interview that you were not concerned about the bondholders, but. that what you wanted was to reduce the rate payable by the ratepayers is quite sufficient and will no doubt be fully appreciated by the bondholders, and when this fact becomes known they will be fully justified in taking exception to being used as a stalking horse. It is unnecessary for me to say that this closes the correspondence.” R. J. Seddon. On Saturday Mr McGuire sent the following ; “ Hon. R, J. Seddon, Premier, Wellington. I understood by your telegram of 20th that youintended to afford some special assistance on the part of your Government to the Harbor Board, to aid them in converting or purchasing back the bonds, and that if the Government could not lawfully afford special assistance of the'character they contemplated thev would even introduce enabling legislation. “ If that offer of special assistance was sincere, and honest, it implied, as I pointed out, an admission of wrong done, entitling-the Board and bondholders to that assistance from the colony by way of reparation. “If it was not honest and sincere, then you were merely making * political capital ’ and playing with words. “ By your last telegram, I see that this latter course was the one deliberately adopted by you, and that your high-sounding offer of assistance to the Board to ‘ solve the difficulty ’ (as you term it) had no real meaning. “ You now say that all youintended was to call my attention to the legislation of last session, viz., —‘ The Local Bodies Loan Conversion Act, 1895.’

“ This Act enables local bodies (including, of course, the Harbor Board) to create new stock and exchange for stock already issued, if the bondholders are willing, at such prices as the bondholders and the Harbor Board can agree upon. “ The assistance of the Government is not necessary to enable the Board to create such stock under the Act of last session, therefore your offer of assistance was illusory. “Your somewhat offensively-worded suggestion that I was ignorant of the existense of the Act was an impertinence to me that I can only class with your previous objection to my using the telegraph to reply to your telegram. “ To revert to the main question, what is the position ? The New Plymouth Harbor Board debentureholders are furions because the New Zealand Government have robbed the Harbor Board of 200,000 acres of a magnificent endowment which had been before then pledged to the bondholders as security for the loan. “ The fact that the Government have used it to make reparation to the native race for a wrong done to them by the colony does not in any way satisfy the bondholders. They have not done any wrong to the native race, and object to any wrong being set right at their expense. This is the ‘ difficulty to be solved ’ which you refer to. “ You propose, in order to solve it, that the Board should say, in effect, to the bondholders,— ‘ You complain that we borrowed £200,000 upon the security (inter alia ) of 200,000 acres, which the Government has since taken • to enable them to make reparation to some natives whom the Legislature declared they had robbed at an earlier date. Well, the Government will not give that land back to us, but if you give us back our bonds we will give you fresh ones, with absolutely no better than you now possess.’ “If the bondholders reply. ‘That does not improve our position ’ you wish the Board to answer ‘ Then if you refuse our offer you have notlSng to complain of.’ This absurd method of satisfying the bondholders’ injuries is a way of solving the, difficulty quite in keeping with your other communications to myself, the bondholders, and Mr Ward, when that gentlemen was in London. ' .“ Your conduct throughout has been to hoodwink and deceive the Board, the bondholders, and myself with words and ambiguous expressions which, as in this instance, you have invariably shuffled out of on the pretence that you meant something else. “ With regard to your suggestions of my taking advantage of the bondholders and their interests by approaching Mr Ballance as I did, that correspondence is on record and was before the Council of Foreign Bondholders and the New Plymouth Debentureholders long before I went to England. These gentlemen have given me their confidence notwithstanding, which is a sufficient answer tq your offensive remarks upon the subject. “ Before you can presume to advise the bondholders as to whom they can

trust you must act differently. As to your dealings with them, 1 may mention, for instance, that the omission on your part to produce the oft-called for telegram which you alleged you sent to the Colonial Treasurer in London disclaiming arbitration has caused a most uneasy suspicion in the minds of the bondholders as to such a telegram even having had any existence in fact. I am, indeed, sorry that I cannot congratulate you upon the accuracy of your memory of oiir conversations at Hawera or Wellington, which you refer to in your telegram. It would be impossible for me to censure at your hands for abusing my privilege as a member were I to use the telegraph to correct in detail the inaccuracies of your report of our conversations. I content myself with absolutely disclaiming the accuracy of your memory. “ In this correspondence you have reproached me with “ making political capital ” and with “ discourtesy.” I am unconscious of either. Is it not you who has attempted to make “ political capital ” with your offers of illsory sham assistance, and is it not you that is “ discourteous ” in your abusive tirade delivered against me in order to cover your retreat when I have pricked the bubble of your sham offer of assistance ? F. McGuire.”