THE WOODWARD STREET TRANSACTION.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 306, 19 September 1908, Page 4

THE WOODWARD STREET TRANSACTION.

1> The findings of the Parliamentary Committee on the Woodward Street transaction were laid before the House of Representatives yesterday. The issues submitted to the Committee were:—(l) That the Crown was stated to have sold certain derelict land in Woodward Street, either to Mr. T. Kennedy Macdonald, M.L.C., or to tho Wellington City Council. (2) That the said land had been sold without competition and outside the provisions of the statute. (3) That the price obtained for the said land was considerably less than its value. (4) That a strip of land conveyed to the Wellington City Council by Mr. T. K. Macdonald was only 0.47 of a perch instead of 4 perches as stated in a letter by Messrs. Macdonald, Wilson, and Co. to the UnderSecretary for Crown Lands. (5) That thero was something irregular in the bargain made between the City Council and Mr.. Macdonald in regard to the erection of a concrete wall. The findings of the Committee set out that the laud was sold; that the sale did take place without competition; that the price paid was a fair one; that a mistake was made by Messrs. Macdonald, Wilson, and Co. as to the area to be given by Mr. Macdonald to tho City, and that Mr. Macdonald was blameable for not making himself acquainted with the real facts of the case before writing to the Under-Secretary for Lands on the subject. As to the concrete wall the Committee expresses no' opiniou; and it is silent as to the legality or otherwise of the form in which tho transfer of the' land to Mr. Macdonald was carried through. It must be assumed, however, from the tenor of the report that it does not blame the Lands Department in the matter. The report of the Committee is, in fact, a somewhat colourless one, and in that respect is in contrast to the evidence. Even a cursory glance through the state: raents of the witnesses called shows a remarkable conflict of testimony. Tho Under-Sccrctary for Lands, for instance, stated emphatically that some time in April, 1907, Messrs. T. W. Hislop and T. K. Macdonald called on him in respect of the - proposal to transfer the section of Crown land to the City Corporation as part of the scheme for improving Woodward Street. Mr. Kensington gave details of the conversation which took place on that occasion, and was quite positive that the two gentlemen in question called on him in company. His evidence on this point was confirmed with equal emphasis by three officers of his Department; and yet it was flatly contradicted by Messrs. Hislop and Macdonald. Here are extracts from tho evidcDce bearing on the point:— Mr. Fisher—"l was going to ask Mr. Kensington if he still adhered to his statement that the Mayor and Mr. Macdonald callcd on him on or about April 29. . Mr. Kensington—"l still adhere to my statement that his Worship the Mayor, accompanied by Mr. Kennedy Macdonald, waited on me on that date." Paul Vorschnffolc, Record Clerk in the Lands Department, stated: "Mr. Macdonald and Mr. Hislop wero both present" [on the occasion in question]. This witness described the positions in which the two gentlemen were sitting. i Robert Aimers Paterson, Chief Accountant in tho Lands Department, stated: "I recollect Mr. Hislop and Mr. Macdonald coming to tho Land office in April last." Robert Lontham, messenger to tho Department, stated: "Of course I could not say anything as to what occurred between tho Under-Secretary and Mr. llislop and Mr. Macdonald, but I do know of them calling upon him to seo liini." This witness also said ho admitted the two gentlemen to Mr. Kensington's room. On tho other side wc find the witnesses quite as positive: Hon. C. Hi Mills— I "Did I understand from you that you wero never in tho ofiice of Mr. Kensington with Mr. Kennedy Macdonald." Mr. T. W. Hislop—"Never witli Mr. Macdonald or anybody else on this subject." The witness added that he did not remember being in tho Government Offices with Mr. Macdonald on any other subject. Mr. Fisher—"You aro quite certain you wero never in Mr. Kensington's ofiice at any timo with the Mayor?" Mr. Macdonald— "Quito certain that I was not. I cannot conceive how tho impression can have arisen iu Mr. Kensington's mind." Tho whole position in such circumstanccs is very puzzling and unsatisfactory. The conflict of evidence on tho particular point dealt with above is of importance as indicating the part taken by the Mayor in the early stages of the negotiations. In the course of his evidence Mr. Hislop makes it clear that the letter written by Maodonald, Wilson, and Co., and-which gave the impression that that firm was acting for the City Council, was quito unauthorised so far as tho council was concerned, and Mr. Macdonald admitted this, declaring at the same time that lie had no intention of leaving it to be thought that he was acting for tho CounI cil. Then, again, tho manner in which I tho stipulation of the Minister as to the payment for the land by tho corporation was carried out was another unsatisfactory feature. Indeed, much of the suspicion which has been created over this transaction appears to have been due to the methods followed by Messrs. Hislop and Macdonald to attain their ends, rather than to the ends themselves. For two business men of their experience to proceed in tho loose fashion indicated by the evidence is very surprising. So far as Wellington City is concerned, it has nothing to grumble at in tho outcome of tho transaction, but no' unprejudiced person can read tho evidence without realising that the city might have gained the same ends without resort to the same tactics and without giving rise to tho unpleasant suspicions which have excited tho public imagination on this topic for some months past.