Wellington Independent WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 30, 1871.

Wellington Independent, Volume XXVI, Issue 3290, 30 August 1871, Page 2

Wellington Independent WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 30, 1871.

It is perfectly evident from the remarks that fell from the Bon. Mr Stafford yesterelay afternoon on the subject of the Wellington Reclaimed Land Bill that he has been egregiously imposed upon. The hon. gentleman, we say it with all duo respect, seems to have too credulously listened to the representations of the promoters of the petition he consented to introduce. We wish, therefore, entirely to exculpate him in any remarks we may make, believing that his confidence has been shamefully abused. After considerable exertions we have been at last able to get a copy of this mysterious document, which may be briefly characterised as in some parts mendacious, in some unintelligible, and in others absurd. We have not space, nor is it necessary, to go into any detailed criticism. It will be sufficient to say that it begins with an implied assertion the falsity of which has been exposed in the House. " We, the undersigned ratepayers," who most earnestly pray the House, are proved in three hundred and twenty-seven cases to be no ratepayers at all ! One Frankland Valentine, in his burning zeal to save the city, writes his rather noticeable name two, if not three times, at full length on the petition, but to save the time of the rate-coliector, or from some other equally commendable motive, he has taken care (that is, supposing he exists in the flesh) to keep his name out of the city rate-book. Some of the names have been evidently inserted by way of bait to catch the unwary. Thus we observe the name '' John Martin," and as the only ratepayer of that name is a well-known and enterprising citizen who has large interests at stake in the city and province we confess that the bait was ingeniously selected. Jt is almost heartless to expose anything so neatly contrived, but in the interests of " the ratepayers" we must explain that the nnly ratepayer of that name disowns the signature. We might take another instance. A name John Johnston appears among the signatures, and the only ratepayer of that name is not in the colony. His representatives here repudiate the signature. Had such ratepayers as the Hon. John Johnston or Mr John Martin signed the petition, it would certainly have been entitled to some weight, but when every second signature is either a forgery or an imposture, what weight can be attached to it? On enquiry we find that many of the signatures were given on the strength of the viva vocc explanations of the correspondent John Plimmer, whose letter on the subject appeared in our issue of Saturday. They simply signed blank sheets, the petition itself not being before thorn. How fair an J candid his explanation would be, may be inferred from the letter referred to. In it he roundly asserts " that the lull was passed through the Provincial Council by thf narrow majority of 'one' — that majority having boon secured by a special arrangement with one of its members, who has since been appointed to a clerkship in the Provincial Land Odice, and who has resigned his seat in ihe Provincial Council." We have applied to the Clerk of the Provincial Council, and have received from him an extract of the resolutions passed on the 28th day of June, 1871, which it is unnecessary to quote in extenso. Suffice it to say that after a recital as to the negotiations that had been carried on between the Provincial Government and the Corporation on the subject, it goes on to say : " Now, it is

hereby resolved that his Honor the Superintendent be requested to cause a bill to be introduced into the General Assembly nt its next sitting, authorising him, with the advice of his Executive Council, and subject to the rights of the General Government in regard to the same, to convey and transfer the same (the reclaimed land, as described in the recital) to the said Corporation, as part of the Corporate property, subject to the following conditions." Here follow the conditions inserted in the bill, the last of which runs thus : " 7th. The bill to contain all other provisions necessary for carrying into effect the foregoing resolutions, according to its true intent and spirit." Now, as this is the very resolution whiclihis Honor the Superintendent is requested, as the mouth-piece of the Provincial Council, to give effect to by the bill before the Assembly, the statement " that it was passed through the Provincial Council by the narrow majority of one" quite took away our breath, for we knew it had no foundation in fact. As we had lately to refer to the City Clerk for an extract from the vecovds of the City Council, setting this correspondent right on a matter of fact connected with the same subject, so wo had recourse on this occasion to the Clerk of the Provincial Council. He courteously made out for us the extract referred to, and appended the following note : — " No division was called for, and the resolution was passed unanimously. — (Signed) J. M. Taylor, Clerk of Council."

We may add that the meetings of the Provincial Council were held in no secret chamber, and were not shrouded in the mystery which this correspondent so much affects. They were held in the Odd Fellows' Hall (numbers of the citizens being present when the resolutions were agreed to), and wero very fully reported Irom day to day in our columns. No petition or remonstrance was then ever talked of to the Provincial Council on the subject. But leaving the history of the petition, let us refer briefly to its allegations The first is " that the reclaimed land referred to in the said bill is the only source of revenue left to the city for carrying out sewerage, water supply, public recreation and education." Now we would ask the hon. member for the city of Dunedin (Mr Reynolds), who has shown a very proper concern for our citizens' rights as well as the claims of the colony by narrowly, or, as ho phrases it, " suspiciously" watching this bill, what he would think of a petitioti from the ratepayers of Dunedin which began with claiming the reclaimed land in that city as the only source of revenue left to the city. He would say it is preposterous. Tile second allegation we have read over several times, but we confess we can make nothing of it. .It seems to us utterly unintelligible. The third is amusingly absurd. The fourth is still more so, and as it is comparatively short we find space for it. " That your petitioners would respectively urge that the Provincial Government should have accounted for its stewardship and surrendered all assets, which of right belonged to the city, including the equity of redemption in the reclaimed and unreclamed land, and that the population of the town being one-third of the whole province the city is entitled to some portion of the provincial revenue, say to one-third of the five-eighths of Customs revenue or capitation money." We have only space to refer to the ninth allegation, which, if it means anything, meuns this — " give us the reclaimed land and the unreclaimed land released from these debts, and lot us spend the pro. ceeds for city purposes, and let the mortgagee, whose security we take away, either look somewhere else for his money or go without it." The mure we read this petition, and it is by no means easy work, the more clearly do we see that its allegations lead up to what is comprehended in the very ugly word repudiation. The history of this petition shows the folly, far too common, of signing petitions without due investigation into their contents, and the ordinary practice which prevails as to presentation of a petition to the Assembly on a purely local subject by local representatives who have opportunities of knowing its merits is shown to be most conducive in the long run to the public interest. The present petition is nothing but a very clumsy attack upon the Provincial and the Municipal Councils for respectfully adopting n certain course of action, after due deliberation; and in both of these bodies the petitioners were ond are fullyrepresented, and any petition or remonstrance of theirs would have been received and attended to. We trust we shall hear no more of it. Its consideration has already occupied too much of our space, and too much of the time of the Assembly. We trust that the precedent of the hon. member for Tim am will not be followed ; but if any hon. member is quixotic enough to present a petition on a local matter, reflecting on the action of the constituted authorities, he will inform himself, before supporting it, rather by reference to the authentic records of their proceedings, than by listening to the ex parte statements of its very zealous but possibly very mistaken promoters. To such a one we would say " Gave ne literas BellerophonUs adfcrresJ"