THE BUSHY PAKE ESTATE. FURTHER INTERESTING CORRE. SPONDENCE.

Otago Witness, Issue 2253, 6 May 1897, Page 23

THE BUSHY PAKE ESTATE. FURTHER INTERESTING CORRE. SPONDENCE.

(From Our Own Correspondent. ) Wellington, April 30. Hardly & day passes without some reference in political and commercial circles to the f ale of the Bushy Park estate. The correspondenca between the Minister for Lands and Mr (George Hutchison promises as it develops to be more and mere interesting. Following ihe Minister's now celebrated dissertation on Highland hospitslity, Mr Geo. Hutchison wrote him under date April 27 :— •'Dear Sir, — Thanks for your Bushy Park reply. The position is certainly hnmorons, but I think it would be a pity to puf-h the jo*e the length joa suggest. Possibly on re-flection you will agree that it would be a sorry piece of pleasantry to ask one's host for the perusal r>t his title deeds. But there need be no ' difficulty.' As tar as I know, the legtstered post is still free from inspiration, and might be trnstid to return the deeds that were unfortunately sent away just before receipt of my request. A few day*' delay wen'o matter — that is, if you do not wish to withdraw the offer which was my excuse foe troubling you. Or, if the deeds cannot conveniently be returned, the solicitors who might have produced them on your order trill no doubr. have copies or drafts, which would give all tbe information necessary. Why not send an auchorstt- in i<-e them ? — Yours truly, " G. Hutchison. " t\s. — I notice this morning that you bave published our yesterday's exchange of letters. They must have been handed by you to the printers almost as soon as your reply reached me. Perhaps you will take tbe same prompt means to publish this correspondence as it proceeds." To this Mr M'Ksnzie did not deign to reply, so Mr Hutchison proceeded to rub it in somewhat severely. Here is his next letter to the Acting Premier :—: — " Dear Sir, — No answer. So your offer to produce the deeds was sheer buff. And sow you desire that silence shall fall upon Bushy Park. That cannot be. But betora dealing ■with tha purchase peraut me a passing reference to your latter of the 26th Some people seem to think your invitation to me to visit Bushy Park was intended as a piece of brutal mnliitrily. The language you used, certainly support? an interpretation different from that I siviposed, but I am still unwilling to believe 30U would so disgrace the very name of hospitality as to cmtemplate harah measures on such an occasion. Probably the idea arose frem some recollection of the 'smack over the ear' you once threatened me •with. But of course you did nofc carry out that threat. Tne fierce onslaught stopped by the timely intervention -of your f rieuds was only a simulated baitle. Yon never meant to commit & breach of the peace ; neither do you now, I hope, mean to thame the name of M'E>nzie. To suppose your invitation to visit Bushy Park coverc-d a design to shooi . your guest would be to suppose what might damage even the reputation of a Cabinet Minister. Besides, a tragedy on the spot might depreciate the value of such a fine property. On every consideration, therefore, it would have been unwise of you to harbour such bloodthirsty feelings ; so that I am probably right in assuming that what most people considered rudeness you intended for wit. lam well assured the honour of a Highlander is nob less bright than that of the Arab of tbe desert, who treats himself as ho3tagefor his guest — even if he be his greatest enemy. "Passing from that aspect of the matter, let us approach the more important subject. Your sons have secured a bargain. Th^jy are to be congratulated ; thafe is their affair. The public's affair is to ascertain whether this bargain was obtained under circumstances that amount to the bestowal of a personal favour by those whose duty it is to guard the interests of the t?x.payers, aud also to consider how the delaiis of this bargain accord with the professed principles of tho3e, including yourself, who are having to do with the administration of public affairs. •'The parliamentary committee of 1895, of which you were a member, recommended (as gupp'etuenting the £2,000,000 guaranteed to the Bank of New Zealand in the previous year) that the colony should further guarantee the bank its ' book value ' of the globo assets. You and you colleagues were successful in passing legislation which carried out that recommendation by which £2,680,000, as representing the 'book value' of the globo assets transferred to the Assets Board for realisation, was guaranteed by the colony. These globe .assets at the tima were siid to be worth £1,879,000that is, according to what the committee described as 'the bank's latest-ascertained

I value.' Tha difference, representing upwards of £800,000, was indicated as likely to be made | good by the future profits of the reconstructed bank ; so also any shrinkage in the so-called 'latest-ascertained value,' which was about as j fictitious in degree as ' the book value,' -which the authority of the Government imposed as a liability upon the colony. ' The relative values at different times of these assets as a whole j may sot inaptly be illustrated in part by the Bushy Park property, for instance, which was taken over by the colony as part security for the millions it guaranteed. " r Xhe ' book value' of Bushy Park has never been disclosed to the public, but it may be safely stated at not less than £32,000. Its 'latest ascertained value' (in August 1895) was £7000 less, and what may be called its • realised value ' now (in 1897) is £5000 lower still ; co that the ' realised value ' is not less than £12,000 short of the ' book value.' In the circumstances eorae little concern may be pardoned the public in seeking to arrive at the terms of a transiction i which draws so much upon their forbearance I and, probably, on their means. " As you decline to assist in this iaquiry I am ' left to deal with such facts as ara otherwise ' available. la doing so I shall be careful to state • only what can be trabstantiated. Many details 1 both interesting and instructive may appro- • priately await iurther developments. Now to j the facts. j " Early in 1896 the Assets Board gave publicity I to a general intimation that ifc was open to onj sider proposals for any of the properties in its charge. As to Bushy Park, nothing seems to ' feave resulted from that invitation. The estate ' remained under the management of your eldest i son. Some months later the property was cut lup by the board for sale. You were well aware ■ol this. You discussed the matter with neighbours and otheiM. All a1;a 1 ; ouce this idea was abandoned, and proposals were m*de (indirectly) for (he disposal of the estate to those ■ now in posse*aioD, but as the general election 1 was coming on the completion of the matter ; was considered proper to be deferred. ! " After the general election arrangements were '■ concluded tor the lease of the land with a conI truct to purchnse, and for tha sale of the stock | st an amount to Le fixed by the valuation of , one of the purchasers aud of one of the station ' managers of the board. An umpire was ap- \ pointed, but his services were unnecessary. j The two valuers agreed. . . . The purchasers had reason to be satisfied when they had to deal with tach a body as the Assets Board. •• A report from one of the officers (unnamed) of the board read by the Premier at his New- ! town meeting on the 21«t April states ' the ! proceed* of the salH of Bushy Park will yield 1 to the Brails xfciou Board the gum of £900, or 4-i-I per cent, on £20,000, free from all responsibili'y ior deductions cf any kind.' This presupposes ; the purchase of the freehold as well as the ' stock, and as the bargain is a good one (for the purchasers) the terms will no doubt be given effect to, so that it is allowable to assume (as , the board setms to assume) that tha purchase ; of the whole for £20,000 has practically been I completed. [ " Now for the application of the facts. Let us sos how this transaction, which you seek to j justify, accords with the treatment which you 1 as a Miu:st«r of the Crown consider good ! enoi.gb lor others — ] "1 Advances to settlers may be obtained from the hoard of which you are a member at 5 per cant. Public funds have been mide available to ycur sells by another board of wbiih two ■ members a c Government nominees at 4£ per cent. ''Advances to settlers are restricted (and properly so) to three-fifths the freehold valua- , tion. Advances to you? sons aie made to the ' full limit of the purchase money. "2. Selectors under jour Land Acts are re- . Btrictid to 640 acres of fiist-claes land. Your 1 sons are aseisted by tlie board appointed under ; the Bank of New Zealand and Backing Ac 1 } to ' 2243 acres of Br3t-ela»s lard. i "3 Selectors under the Land for Settlement j I Act (being those dealing with properties which ; most nearly admit of a parallel to Bushy Park) ■ are restricted to a 1* ase in perpetuity at 5 per ! cent, rental on a valuation which is gonerally ' considered ton high. Your sons ara enabled by the Assets Board to acquire a freehold with funds provided at 4£ per cent, on a valuation I which is generally considered too low. ( " The latest edition of the • Crown Lands : Guide,' issued under your authority as Minister j tor Lands, urges on the public the desirability ■ of taking up the unselected and forfeited secj tioas in the Pomahaka. block and other recent investments of the public capital. Wh^v were your son« not persuaded to try that specific for true settlement, the lease in perpetuity, which you so strongly recommend to others, instead of being encouraged to embark on tbab doomed tenu-e of freehold, wlrc'i in this instance has tbe euervating ch'jtinctto.) of 'an expensive homestead,' Mid if lar^o voolsheds and sheep I yardo, besides having ('ts now appears from your I own graphic description) ihe additional snares j of capital fi3hing and shooting. — Youra truly, ' " G. Hutchison.' 1 Wellington, May 3. 1 The Minister for Lands repJie* this morning j to Mr Hutchison's letter, already published, as j follows : — I ~ " Office of the Minister for Lands, "Welling! on, May 1, 1897. j " George Hutchison, Esq., M.H.R , Wellington, j " Dear Si--, — You fcava onJy hah grasped the i true inwardness ot my letter. As you rightly i eurmise, fcUer«s was no design to shoot you, or in i any other way anticipate the due course of j nature or lvw, but I intended to bring home to j you as delicately as possible that your demand to pry into my sons' private sffairs savoured of impertinence, and herein I have seemingly failed. Permit me therefore to be more explicit. When speaking at Newtown I was addressing the electora of the suburbs, and had procured my sods' authority to place their deeds at the disposal of any elector whose vote might bs influenced by his judgment on the Bushy Park trtiusactioD. This is what I meant to convey, and this I still thiuk is the only reasonable construction my words cm bear. The supposition taat the documents were to be kept here for all time in order to gratify the idls curiosity or political spleen of any Dick, Tom, Harry, or George is an absurdity too palpable for even you to seriously entertaiu, and I do not for a moment believe that you do. "As for the leugthy and laboured misrepresentations and distortions that make up the rest of your letter, I have neither time nor inclination to expose them. Tde fabrication of them has to doubt been a labour of love, and if they gratify you they don't hurt either me or my sots, so all parties are content. Moreover, I am satisfied that the public, for whose benefit your have concocted them, will appraise them, coming from suah a source, at precisely their proper value. You hava the advantsga over me in this correspondence in so far as, instead of being a lawyer out of employment, I am a plain man, whose hands arc more than fully occupied with important business matters. So my share in it must csase. — Yours faithfully, "John M'Kenzie." "P. S. — I read your letter os intended rather for publication than as a guarantee of good

faith. Kindly, therefore, publish this at the same time." To the above Mr Hutchison rejoins in a letter this afternoon as follows :—: — "Wellington, Ist May, 18&7. " Hon. John M'Kenzts, Wellington. " Dear Sir, — I was glad to receive your explanation ; but you must admit that it is somewhat difficult to know when you are serious and when you are joking. Au explanation by you as to one point always seems to make another necessary at some other point. For instance, were you serious at Newtown when you said 'anyone' might see the deeds, or did you only intend the inzpeotion for electors previously sworn to secrecy ? After all, the one point you have managed to make quite clear is the wisdom of the decision you have arrived at not to discuss "the facts. Bushy Park must remain a tender subject with you. As to your iequest tba 1 ; I should SBnd your explanation just received along with the other (unpublished) correspondence to the press, I regret ' you are a little too late.' 1 waited several days after your rush into print before concluding that your roticence indicated a real desire bo abstaiu in future from misrepresenting yourself. But, again, there need be no • difficulty.' You have the newspaper in which you published ths beginning of our correspondence You can, of course, use ifc again for your explanation and this reply. —

Youis truly, G. Hutchison, . Thia, I learn, closes ths correspondence.