PARLIAMENTARY.

Timaru Herald, Volume XIIIC, Issue 13704, 19 September 1908, Page 6

PARLIAMENTARY.

Per Press Association. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL. ; WELLINGTON, September 18. The CoUucil met at 2.30 p.m. SECOND READINGS. The second readinog deljate on the Manawatu Railwdy Purcluuse Bill was resumed and concluded, and the second reading carried oil the voices. The Agricultural Produce Sale and Importation Bill was read a second time and leferrcd' to "the Stock Committee to take evidence; > FROM COMMITTEE. The Christchurch City Sanilation Rill was Imported from Committee with slight amendments. The Council rcte at 5.30 p.m. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. The House met at 2.30 p.m. A LAND TRANSACTION*. The report of the Lands Committee on the Wooodtrard street land between the "Government and the Wellington City Council and the'company of 'J'. K. Mac Donald, limited, was laid on tintable, and set down for considerstiuuu nextkitting day. ' The main allegation* made by Mr Fisher, which the Committee were asked to gate, were to the effect that 6.55 perches of derelict land, sttunied >m Weiliuu-j. Terrace, had been hold for considerably lees than its real value by tuo Crown, either 1o Mac Donald or the Wellington City Courtcil without competition, and outside the provision of the statute, whereas the said luiid should have b -en dispersed of by public competition. It wfi-, further alleged :h«t tiie strip of land conveyed i-> ihe Ci'v Conin-il l>y Mai-Donald wa> onlv

0.47 of ;< perch, and not 4 perche?. stated by Mac Donald, Wilson and Cw., f« a letter to the Undtr-Seere arv for l.^nosThe Committee reported that nobodj reading Mac Donald, Wilson and Co. ;■ letter could come to any other conclusion than that it was written on behalf of the Wellington City Council; that Miius ers had been justified by the circuni&umccs of ;lie cape in allotting 6.55 perdue to Un Cottncil under section 117 of the Land At;, 1892, and that the value placed on the land sold by the Department was a failvalue. The report proceeded:—" It- is a matter for regret that Mac Donald. W i'.son and should not have been nioie cujvUil when stating the area of the strip of laud intended to be conveyed to the City Council. Their letter of May 2nd. 1907, describes this area as- being 4 perches, and further on refers to it as being of 'aboutequal size and value a* the- 6.00 pereues. whereas as a matter of fact it only consisted of 0.47 perclvis. Mac Donald. when giving evidence on this point, declares that on May 2nd, 1907, lie was firmly of opinion that- he was to concede 4 perches of his own section to the City Council, and that later on, when he discovered that, it was only 0.47 that was required, he gavt the latter piece for nothing. Still thi;i does not exonesate MacDonoald from blame in not making, liimself acquainted with the real facts of the case before writing,to the Under-Secretary for Lands. There is little doubt that this mistake has given rice to much of the public comment on the "whole •subject. Your Committee is, however, satisfied by the evidence on this point that the area of tlik strip -as stated in the said letter of May 2nd. 1907, wos not the determinate factor _ with the Minister of Lands in deciding to agree to sell to the City Council rhe;6;ss perches under section 117 of the Land Act, 1892."