MR. McGUIRE ON THE NEW PLYMOUTH HARBOUR RATE.

Taranaki Herald, Volume XXXVI, Issue 7962, 5 September 1887, Page 4

MR. McGUIRE ON THE NEW PLYMOUTH HARBOUR R ATE.

The following letter appears in tho Hawera Slar: — Sib, — I thiok that tho time has arrived when I can ask the electors to thoughtfully consider a few points in connection ■with n. y harbor Bchoine, and which it appears to mo havo not yet been fully grasped. It will be remembered that u:y proposil wns that the colony should take over tho New Plymouth harbor aa a necessary colonial work. The grounds upon which I based my scheme, and ■which I propose now to discuss, wero ahortly as follows: — Ist. Through the default of tho Government, many person b bought their land in ignorance of its liability to a harbor rate. 2nd. Large numbers of persons bought their land on the represent ition that no rate would be struck for 26 years, and that then a rate of 31 would bo required fora period of four years; whereas tho full Is rate has fallen upon us within a little over five years, and will in all probability be collected in full every year lor the next 20 years. 3rd. Tho* 25 ptr cent, laad fund that should havo been pad to tbo Harbour Board, in respect of land situated withiu tho province, given to the natives by the colony, has beon confiscated by the Government, instead of beintj paid to the Board. By this act of spoliation, I estimated that the Government robbed the Boari of £141,555. 4th. That by the adoption of the perpetual leasing system in place of selling for cash, the Government further reduced the immediate values of the Board by an amount which I estimated at £35,000. sth. That by an error of th& Government surveyors in laying off the confiscated line running north and east of the Ngaire swamp, a large area of land was excluded from the confiscated district and treated ns native land proper instead of Crown lands. The area of the land thuB handed over to the natives I 'estimated roughly at 11,600 acres, the quarter of the value of which was lost to the Board by this error of the Government officers. The loss thus inflicted I estimated at £10,000. It is hardly necessary to touch on the effect of the probable change of tenure from deferred payment to perpetual lease, that being a poiut that appears to be generally admitted. Now as to the first point, namely, that many persons purchased in ignorance of the rate. Anyone can satisfy himself on referring to the Gazettes notifying the sales, to the advertisement in the papers, and to the sale plans, that all mention of the rate was carefully concealed from the purchasers." Any private person selling land and concealing that it was subject to a mortgage, rent charge, or. other encumbrance, would be answerable for his omission to the purchaser. This should hold good in the case of the Government. Now as to the second ground, namely, that many persons purchased on tho representation that the rate would never be struck, and certainly not for 26 years, and that then only a 3d rate would be required during a period extending over four yoars and longer. One member, who was then Colonial Treasurer, on the 23rd March, 1881, in answer to a question as to tho New Plymouth harbor, is reported in the Patea Mail to have said : " As one liable to this tax, I should be willing to pay doublo. . Ido not think there is much chance of the rate being imposed." On the 4th November, 1881, again addressing his constituents, Major Atkinson is. reported in the Hawera Star to have said : " He was of opinion that no rate would bo levied ire any case for 25 years, end if that were so we need not make ourselves very unhappy about." Further on he is reported to have said : "He did not believe a rate would ever be levied.' Again, in a letter to the Patea Mail published on the Ist December, 1881, Major Atkinson, referring to the New Plymouth harbor tax, says : "I went very carefully into the question of the probability of o rate being required, and satisfied myself that no rate would,, be struck tor at least 24 years from the present time." Large quantities of land were, purchased after March, 1881, and again after November and December, 1881, and it cannot be denied that representations such as these from a responsible Minister of the Crown and the member for the district were implicitly relied on by the purchasers. With regard to the third ground — namely, that the Government, by giving away to the natives landa within, the provincial district of Taranaki without handing over 25 per cent, of ita value to the Harbour Board, confiscated £141,555 from the board and its creditors — the following are the facts : — AH the native land lying within what is known as the confiscated boundary was taken by the Crown under the provision of the New Zealand Settlement Acts, 1862-64-65, and became the property of Her Majesty, and the title of the natives was thenceforth absolutely extinguished by law. Power was given to the Government to compensate friendly natives and other natives nnder certain conditions as the giving up their arms and so forth when called upon by proclamation. All natives entitled urder those Acts to compensation and •whu complied with these conditions (and they were very few indeed) obtained awards from the Court established under those Acts. All the other native claims in respect of the confiscated land were absolutely barred, and ceased to exist. That being the state of the law, the whole of that magnificent belt of land afterwards known as the continuous reserve was the property of Her Majesty unencumbered by any native rights or lawful native claims. Ido njot say that this was just to the natives, or calculated to promote the peaceful settlement of the province, but that that was the legal position of matters. With the land still in that state, the the Parliament in 1874 endowed the New Plymouth Harbour Board withone-quaiter of all " revenues arising from the sale, occupation, or other disposal " of the waste lands of the Crown within the " Province of Taranaki." [To he continued.]