THE Thames Advertiser WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 13, 1875.

Thames Advertiser, Volume VIII, Issue 2172, 13 October 1875, Page 2

THE Thames Advertiser WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 13, 1875.

Considering the short time at their disposal, and the great difficulty in extracting evidence from unwilling witnesses, we think the Select Committee appointed to enquire into the scandals connected with the opening of the Tairua goldfield have done their work well and effectually. [tisJrue they have not brought anything to light but what was tolerably well known to many persons at the Thames, bufc in bringing the scandals before the Assembly and before the cpuntry they have shown that the storie3 circulated about the very singular manner in which the field was opened were not without good foundation, and we believe, now the real facts are properly understood, that steps will be taken to prevent, by legislation,. the possibility of such 'queer negotiations la the future, The history of the discovery and opening of the new field 'is so fresh iu in the minds of our readers that we need not again repeat the story. But the Select Committee have shown that they have given the most careful consideration to. the entire question.' In their report published in an Auckland contemporary they jgive the following particulars of the reserve for a township, which was leased by Messrs Guilding and Gerald O'HalioraU • On the llth July the conveyance from the natives to the Queen was registered, and on the 14th April, 1875, the surveyor appointed by the Provincial Government repotted the desirability of reserving the available site for a township. On the 15th May, .1875, tbo Provincial Government heard that this samo site .was being surveyed on behalf 'of the natives, and Mr Mackay did not report the selection of the reserve nntil after the survey had been made. On the 2nd July, 1875, the Provincial Government learned, for the first time, that the only, township site had been taken as the native reservP of 1,000 acres, and that the natives had leased it to an interpreter, named Guilding, in Mr Mackay's employ. Guilding had full ~ knowledge of the transaction connected with' the reserve from the very first. Guilding subsequently admitted Mr.O'Halioran, another of Mr Mackay'a clerks,- as a partner in this lease. Mr Mackay was not cognisant of this transaction nntil after its completion, and he says, in his evidence, he expressed his disapproval of it. Guilding and O'Halloran were employed by Mr Mackay, both in his private and public capacity. The. Committee expressed an opinion that the leasing of the reserve by persons employed by Mr Mackay, presumably with special information on the subject not accessible to the public ' generally, is very wroDR.

—W quite agree with the finding of the Committee that such a transaction was indeed "very wrong." It may have been within the law, but it was in the highest degree improper, And here is what the Committee think of Mr Mackay's conduct in allowing persons in his employ to accept, as a gift, a thousand shares in. the prospectors' claim:— The facts relating to the acceptance by Mr , Crippen, a clerk of Mr Mackay's, of a sharo of the prospectors' claim, at Tairua, are as follows !—The prospectors asked their agent, Mr W. A. Grahame, to offer a share to Mr Mackay, the General Government Atjent. Mr Mackay refused, giving as his reason that it would perhaps be used against him in his official capacity. He was then asked if ho would like it to be given to O'Halloran, and he objected, as O'Halloran was connected with him by marriage, but. he suggested Crippen,' who had been a faith-' ful servant of his. 'It was accordingly given to Crippen, and, from O'flalloran's evidence, it appears that the share was divided equally between them, It was afterwards sold for £2,000, and O'Halloran got £800. Mr Mackay states positively that he himself was not directly or indirectly interested in the share. The Committee considered this transaction highly improper, and that whilst Mr Mackay. declined a share; himself, he: should have peremptorily refused to allow any of tho persons in his employment to accept it. —But Mr Mackay did not refuse to allow his clerks to accept "gifts" from those who were anxious to secure prior information of the opening of the field. The Committee express a strong opinion regarding Mr Mackay and . his clevka: — The Committee proceed to comment on < tho terms of Mr Mackay's employment as a Land Purchase Commissioner, partly acting for the Government, and partly for private individuals. This the' Committee condemn, and was of opinion that an agent situated in' that way should not be'allowed to determine the rights of privato persons. The Committee also suggested legislation-to settle such rights, and strongly condemn the Bystem under which O'Halloran and Crippen were able to use information not accessible to the public, and recommend that all persons employed as agents of the Government, whether paid by salary or commission, should be taken to be Qovernment officers, subject to the ordinary rules regulating the public service. The Committee also ro- • ported that no man employed by Government to purchase land should be allowed to. traffic in land for himself. ' —We regret to see that Mr O'Halloran's name Is connected not only with Mr Brissendeu in the Ohinemuri miners' rights fraud, but with Mr Quilding in the leasing of the Tairua reserve, and with Mr Crippen in sharing the money derived from the " gift" they were-.allowed to accept from the Tairua prospectors. The public will reasonably ask why £2,000 was presented to Messrs O'Halloran and Crippen, and- they may perhaps draw unjust conclusions. We are thankful to Sir George Grey for stirring up these matters, and we trust that recent disclosures will lead to radical changes in the policy of the Government.'