CORRESPONDENCE.

Taranaki Herald, Volume XL, Issue 9207, 8 October 1891, Page 3

CORRESPONDENCE.

We are not nsponiible for the opinions expressed by correspondents. The writers name, aa a gnianrateo of (rood fsitb, mtut be enoloaea in tho (•ttor.l NEW PLYMOUTH HARBOUR LOAN. TO THE EDITOR. Sib, — I have only just read the debate on tho New Plymouth Harbour Board question, which took place on the 26th August, and I think great credit is due to the members of this district for the able and clear way in which the claims of the harbour ratepayers for consideration have been placed before the House. I am, therefore, rather surprised that the Press of the district have not specially noted their efforts in this respect. While, all the members deserve credit for their action, I think special credit is due to Mr Qeo. Hutchison, who is only nominally representing this . district, as the largest part of his constituents may be said to be outside the rating area, and he is, therefore, not specially called on to represent the claims of the whole body of the ratepayers. Af ier reading the Report of the Committee on the New Plymouth Harbour question, of which he was chairman, and his speech during the debate, I was impressed with tho knowledge he displayed of the question, and of the intricate dealings of the Legislature with the confiscated lands, and the lawful claims the New Plymou'eh Harbour endowment has to the fourths from those lands for harbour purposes. I think any fair-minded person, after reading his speech, will come to the conclusion that I haye — that his arguments are unanswerable. There is only one omission made, and I hope I shall not be considered ungracious in referring to it. If more evidence had been taken by the Committee, it is possible the omission would have been supplied. I rd'er to the statement made by Mr Rolleston, .who said he was speaking with an intimate knowledge of the matter ; that there was no doubt in his mind that the making of the confiscated lands Crown lands by the interpretation clause of the Land Act of 1877 was an oversight. Mr Rolleston was evidently speaking from memory, and bis memory deceived him. Had he refreshed his memory by reference to the Ads and parliamentary procedure affecting the confiscated lands, he would have refrained from making such a positive statement, and would not have unintentionally misled the House. From the period when the Public Works policy was inaugurated, it was contemplated to make the confiscated lands waste lands of the Crown, subject to the ordinary land laws. Section 22 of the Immigration and Public Works Act, 1870, provides that the Governor may by proclamation declare confiscated lands to be wattolandsof the Crown, subject to the Provincial Waste Lands Acts and Ordinances. The Public Works scheme necessitated the abolition of provinces, and in tho same year tr at the p -ovinces were abolished, and the New Plymouth Harbour Endowment Ordinance passed, viz., 1875, section 16 of the Public Revenues Act provides that the revenue derived from confiscated lands shall be deemed to have been land fund from July 1, 1875, but not for the New Plymouth Harbour Endowment Ordinance, 1874, until 30th September, 1876. Section 14 of the Waste Lands Administration Act, 1876, provides that the Governor may by proclamation proclaim confiscated lands to be waste lands of the Crown in the same way that he is authorised to declare that native lands purchased out of loans may be so declared by sec 17. Section 3of the Financial Arrangements Act 1876, defines land revenue to mean and include all such rovenue as is mentioned in the Pubiic Revenue Act 1867, and any Act amending the same, and section 4 of the same Act declares that in the case of Taranaki the land fund shall be charged with the percentage payable under " The New Plymouth Harbour Board Endowment Act, 1874." As the Public Revenues Act 1875 made revenue from confiscated land, ordinary land revenue, therefore, confiscated land revenue became waste lands revenue on tho Ist October, 1876, some twelve months before the confiscated landß were formally made Crown lands or waete lands of the Crown by tho Land Act, 1877. Instead of this declaration of the Land Act of 1877 being an oversight, as Mr Rolloßton erroneously states, it was Bimply carrying into effect previous declarations of tho House as embodied in Acts of Parliament. In fact the Statute Book fairly bristled with provisions showing the intention of the Legislature before 1877 to make the confiscated lands ordinary waste lands of tho Crown. I think with this supplementary information, the case of the harbour ratepayers and bondholders will be strengthened, and that next session I hope the Legislature will see ita way to do justice to all parties concerned — to the ratepayer, who have been called on to pay a full rate many years before tho time, and to the bondholders, who have not received their full interest owing to the Legislature altering the conditiong of tho contract for reasons of colonial policy. — I am, &c, Thomas Kelly.