CHARGE OF POLITICAL DUPLICITY AGAINST THE PREMIER. Wellington, May 27.

Te Aroha News, Volume II, Issue 104, 30 May 1885, Page 6

CHARGE OF POLITICAL DUPLICITY AGAINST THE PREMIER. Wellington, May 27.

Having observed an article in the Dun- " edin "Evening Star" of the 13th inst. ' which practically charges the Hon. the Premier with political duplicity in connection with the Dunedin Drill -shed Reserve E Act Amendment' Act, 1884, I have taken j some trouble to ascertain the facts of the r I case, believing that the matter is of interest to your readers. I leave Mr Stout to make his own explanation, if he should deem such a course necessary, and in the meantime offer you the following version of the matter, which, I may say, has been obtained from reliable sources. The "Star" apparently charges Mr Stout with having a hand in retrospective legislation, validating something that had been illegally done by the Dunedin Drill-shed Commissioners acting by the advice of Messrs Sievwright, Stout, and Co., and rendering a certain estate liable for a previously invalid lease. The alleged antecedents were as follows :— -Messrs Sievwright, Stout, and Co. were employed by the Dunedin Drill-shed Commissioners to prepare conditions of sale for the leasing of a portion of the Drill shed Reserve. The late Mr James Marshall and Mr Proudfoot were the purchasers at the sale. Mr Proudfoot got his lease and sold part to the " Otago Daily Times " Co. Marshall never took up his lease, but signed an agreement to do so. There was provision made for a renewal of the lease to the lessee on payment of valuation. Similar provisions have been made in other leases in Dunedin, when powers to lease were the same. After Marshall's death, hia executors, believing that as there was no lease he was merely a yearly tenant, intimated to the Drill-shed Commissioners their intention to give up possession at the expiration of the annual tenancy, the lease being then considered a bad bargain at the price Marshall had been paying. The solicitors for Marshall's executors wrote to Sievwright, Stout, and Co., pointing out that the contract for the lease could not,in their opinion, be enforced on either side. The Dunedin Drill-shed Reserve Act Amendment Act became law in October, 1884, and its chief clause absolutely validated the agreements and leases, making them good in law as from the date of execution, and in January, 1885, the executors were sued and judgment entered up for plaintiffs, the Drill-shed Commispioners. The bill was introduced in the Legislative Council by the Hon. Mr Reynolds, colleague of the Hon. Mr Stout, who was then Premier ; hence the charge against the latter now made by the Dunedin "Star." So far as I can learn, the facts of the case are as follows : It appears the Amending Bill was prepared by Sievwright, Stout, and Co. before the first session of Parliament in 1884, and duly advertised in the Dunedin "Evening Star" of the 12th, 19th, and 26th of May, a copy being left in the R.M. Court, Dunedin, for public inspection. The invalidity of the agreement was not decided on by any Court till long after the passing of the Act. The words of the Act of 1876 were that the Drill-shed Commissioners could grant a lease at such rent and on such conditions as the Commissioners should think reasonable, and that with similar powers only the City Council of Dunedin had provided for renewals, or payment of valuation. The Commissioners intimated that they wished the Amending Act prepared in case of the question arising, and Sievwright and Stout, their solicitors, prepared the Bill, and publicly intimated by advertisement that it would be introduced into Parliament. The Hon. Mr Dick, then Colonial Secretary agreed to introduce the Bill, and the Hon. Mr Bryce, then Defence Minister, certified that from a Government point of view there was no objection to the Bill. Then followed the first session of 1884, the Atkinson Government were turned outof office, and left their bills in their pigeon-holes. Next the General Election and the return of Mr Stout and his accession to office. Representing a Dunedin constituency as he did, it might very naturally be thought that he would take charge of a bill affecting the city of Dunedin, but he did not do so; the bill was introduced by the Hon. Mr Reynolds, th# Otago member of the Cabinet, and Mr Stout appended a written note to the bill stating that as his firm prepared the bill he declined to interfere with it in any way. I think this explanation completely exonerates Mr Stout.