GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

Globe, Volume IV, Issue 410, 5 October 1875, Page 2

GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

(Press Telegraph Agency,') Monday, Oct. 4. The Speaker took the chair at 2.30,, LEAVE OF ABSENCE. A further ten days’ leave of absence was granted to Mr Bluett. MEMBERS’ LAND TRANSACTIONS. The Native Minister laid upon the table a return of the members who had sold or transferred any laud to the Government during the last five years. QUESTIONS. Mr Webb asked when the railway between Christchurch and Tiraaru, and that between Tiraaru and Waitaki, would be opened for traffic ? Hon E. Eichardson was understood to say, in reply to the first question, that only a short distance remained to be completed between Temuka and Rangitata, aud that the line would be opened not later than the first week in January. With regard to Timaru and Waitaki, he was hardly in 'a position to give a definite answer, but thought the line would be open in about twelve months. Mr Thomson asked the following questions : down on first table page 8 of the financial statement as “ expended” includes discount or loss in the negotiations of loans, and the £BO,OOO paid or to be paid to Messrs Rothschild, or whether these sums have to be met out of the £661,128 of “ available (2) Whether the promise made by Sir J. Vogel to Messrs Rothschild that the New: Zealand Government would not enter the money market for two years, means simply that Government would not borrow under the New Loan Act, or whether it means that Government would not during this period enter the money market to raise the balances of loans amounting to £1,954,800, (3) When do Government propose raising jthe said balances of £1,954,800. (4) If howill state the amount by which the liabilities of the colony on the 30th of June, amounting to £34,957, have been reduced up to 30th of September. (5) How much of the £6OOO drawn by Sir J. Vogel is chargeable on the loan.

Hon Major AttvINSON could not reply with certainty as to whether the eighty thousand referred to was included in the amount mentioned, but if not, it was included in the estimated liabilities. Some expenditure had taken place of which they had no accurate knowledge. The whole of the expenses of raising the loan were included either in the .mount expended or in the estimated liabilities, so that they could not have to be met out of the available balance. The available balance set out was, as far as Government

could tell, the exact available balance. (2) The Treasurer said Sir J Wd madno such promise to Messrs Rothschild as that New Zealand would not go into the market to borrow for the next t wo years ; but he informed Messrs Rothschild that he did not think Government would require to do so, but he positively refused to give any pledge on the matter. (3) With regard to the balance of the loan, the Government proposed to raise it by colonial debentures. They intended to do so the first favorable opportunity, but the guaranteed debentures would not be parted with until the last work was in hand. ( 4) The Treasurer said he would have such a return made out if the House desired it, but he did not think it would be of much use to the bon gentleman for the purposes for which he desired it. (5) This question could not be answered until such time as the accounts were received from Sir J. Vogel. As soon as these wore received he would lay the particulars before the House. It would be impossible to say how much of that amount would have to be paid out of loan. That would be a question for the House to decide for itself. He had been asked whether Government intended to take any action with reference to those portions of the reports of the waste lands committee upon the petitions of the hon H. R. Russell and Mr Peter Robertson, condemnatory of the waste lands administration in Hawkcs Bay, and the Treasurer said the matter was still under the consideration of the Government, and they would take such steps as they might think necessary. Hon B. Richardson said the member for Caversham had called for a return showing the items of expenditure on roads north of Auckland, and to whom the sums of money were paid. As the preparation of this return would necessitate some sixteen or seventeen hundred entries, he wished to know whether the House desired it, because, if not began at once, it could not be completed during the present session. It was decided not to proceed with the return until the member for Caversham returned. Mr Sheehan asked without notice whether Government intended to bring in a Bill for the sale of the Piako Swamp. The Native Minister said it was the intention of Government to do so, but not until the Piako Swamp committee concluded their labors. FIRST READINGS. The following Bills were introduced and read a first time :—Provincial Appropriation Acts Continuance Bill, and Public Revenue Act Amendment Bill (Hon Major Atkinson); Bill Amending the Public Works and Immigration Act, 1870 (Hon E. Richardson). ( From, a correspondent of the Press,') THE SAN FRANCISCO CONTRACT. In moving a resolution ratifying the San Francisco contract, Hon Mr Reynolds said the apparent delay that had taken place was attributable to a desire on the part of the Government that a copy of the contract, and the latest correspondence on the subject, should be in the possession of members, though the "Government were now in a position to congratulate the House on having entered into a contract that would prove of advantage to the colony. Mr Stafford asked the Commissioner of Customs to inform the House how the colony stood in reference to New South Wales iu the matter. Hon Mr Reynolds was glad the question had been put. The colonies had jointly agreed to send home agents to negociate the services in the terms of a resolution passed by the House. He considered the colony was committed to New South Wales under this contract. New South Wales had already ratified their portion, and he trusted the House would consider it a matter of good faith to follow their example. Mr Stafford pointed out that there was an inconsistency in what the hon gentleman had just stated. The contract had been entered into in excess of the amount named in the resolution. Therefore he wanted to know how far the Government of New South Wales considered this colony had the power of refusing to adhere to the contract, except on the precise terms named in the resolution of this House ; whether the Government of New South Wales would consider it a breach of faith for this colony not /atify the present contract. Hon Mr Reynolds answered that New South Wales would consider it a breaen of faith. There was no doubt Mr Russell had consulted with Sir J. Vogel, and he presumed the amount named in the resolution had been exceeded with Sir J. Vogel’s concurrence. Mr STAFFORD said his question had not been answered. Did New South Wales, as a matter of honor, expect this colony to ratify the contract, notwithstanding that the amount of subsidy and the question of the time the contract had to run had been exceeded 7 Was there any official communication from New South Wales on the subject ? Hon Mr Reynolds replied there was no official correspondence, but the Government took it for granted that New South Wales expected this colony to ratify it. Mr Murray moved an amendment —'‘That the San Francisco service being of advantage to the United States as well as to Australia, the United States Government should pay a portion of the subsidy.” Mr STAFFORD remarked that the mover of the amendment left out of consideration the fact that this colony was absolutely bound in honor to New South Wales to contribute, at all events, within the limit named by the resolution adopted by the House last session. Last session it would have been proper for the hon member to have moved, and for the House to have adopted such an amendment, but he held the House could not in honor, or wisely, iu reference to its standing inside and outside New Zealand, attempt to repudiate a resolution of last session, under which the Government was authorised to contract for the San Francisco service. It was perfectly idle to discuss that question now, but the House was at perfect liberty to discuss whether or not it would approve of the additional £SOOO, or the extension of the contract time by two years. The House should consider whether it was prepared to adopt the contract without any reservation, or to propose some modifications; for instance, Mr Russell, in a letter dated June 29th, stated distinctly that the contractors would be disposed to contract for £15,000 a year less if the route calling at Honolulu instead of Kandavau was adopted He was at a loss to understand what advantages were to be gained by calling at Kandavau to warrant the colony paying £15,000 extra. On the contrary, Mr Russell iu the same letter gave some conclusive reasons against calling there. Outside the House it was said that the coastal

service was a great waste of money, as well ~ an nMin!i , -‘ssary and utterly uncalled for at I mot on the part of the central Government, to incr-ase the system of competition against companies well able to perform that service without foreign aid. Mr Macanduew said so far as he was concerned, if the service was not to go down the coast it would not he of much value. He looked upon it more as a commercial than a postal service. It could be shown without difficulty that great results are likely to accrue from it going down the coast, notwithstanding what fell from the member for Timaru Wool was not the only article that would be exported. If the contract was not to bo accepted as it stood he would be glad to get out of it altogether if he could. He thought a better route via South America might be found, but the colony was in honor bound, and he did not see how the contract could be got rid of without repudiation, which be would bo sorry to be a party to. If Government held things so lightly as to be prepared to make ducks and drakes of it, the debate bad bettor be adjourned to enable members to understand the position. He should oppose all that he could the proposal, unless it was given effect to as before the House. Hon Mr Reynolds said Government had no objection to an adjournment till tomorrow. The reason why the Government did not suggest the service—[Mr Kelly— Mr Russell strongly recommends itj—was because the New South Wales Government would not agree to it. [Mr Kelly—The New South Wales Government is strongly in favor of it. | The saving would not be so great as stated by the member for Timaru, insomuch as the subsidy paid by this colony would then be £37,500, and New South Wales would not contribute towards the coastal service, so that in reality the G. route would come to within one or two thousand of that now proposed to the House. Of course there could be no objection on the part of the Government to negotiation with the company or the New South Wales Government to ascertain if it were possible to modify the present contract, Hon 0, C. BOWEN remarked from the tenor of the correspondence it was plain that the New Zealand agent was not favorable to the coastal service ; but since the contract had been signed Government felt it incumbent on themselves to insist on its ratification as it at present stands, but that would not prevent Government from entering into negociation with the New South Wales Government or the contractors for modifications.

Mr Leckie considered the necessity for an adjournment would be obviated if Ministers made a declaration that, although the contract was ratified, they would make arrangements for doing away with the coastal service. He thought it would be wrong to leave it to any Government to alter the contract, without first submitting the alterations for the approval of the House. No doubt several modifications would have to be made. The adjournment of the debate till tomorrow was agreed to. REPORT OF THE OHINEMURI MINERS' RIGHTS COMMITTEE. The report of the Ohinemuri Miners’ Rights Committee is as follows :—“ 1. The committee appointed to inquire into the alleged illegal issue of miners’ rights at Ohinemuri has made very full inquiry into the matters referred to it. The evidence has been taken of various persons likely to be acquainted with the circumstances bearing upon the case. The committee has examined on oath Mr Edward Torrens Brissenden, Mr James Mackay, Mr Gerald Richard Dixney O’Halloran, Mr Patrick Dillon, Inspector J. B. Thompson, and Captain Fraser, warden of the Thames goldfields. Mr Adam Porter’s evidence has also been taken in support of two petitions sent by him to the House of Representatives, and referred to this committee. The committee has likewise carefully considered the report of the Royal Commission appointed on the 10th May, 1875, to inquire into the alleged illegal issue of miners’ rights at Ohinemuri, as well as the evidence taken before that commission in the province of Auckland, a copy of which has been furnished to the committee. 2. I am directed to report that the Ohinemuri goldfields were opened by proclamation a few minutes after ten o’clock a.m. of the 3rd March, 1875. 3. That some days prior to the opening arrangements were made by Mr Warden Fraser and Mr James Mackay, agents at that time for the General Government, that application for miners’ rights to be exercised on the Ohinemuri goldfields should be received at any time previous to the date at which the field was to be opened, and that the rights so applied for should be issued at Mackay Town as soon as possible after the proclamation, at 10 o’clock, on the morning of the 3rd March, by which the field was declared to be open, this arrangement being publicly notified in the Jiames Advertiser, 4. That the arrangements made to secure a fair and impartial issue of mining rights, appear to have been reasonable and good. 5. That the filling up of miners’ rights, for which applications had been received, occupied the evening of 2nd March, and until 2 a.m of the 3rd March. 6. That the greater portion of the rights so filled up remained in the custody of Captain Fraser until a few minutes before the reading of the proclamation on the 3rd March, when they were given to the persons who were to issue them for the various compartments of the warden’s tent. 7. That 155 miners’ rights passed into the possession of Mr James Mackay on the night of the 2nd March, and remained in his possession until 6 30 a.m. of the 3rd March. 8. That these 155 miners rights were put up in bundles or parcels, one of which contained fifty-three miners’ rights, for which Mr Brissenden had made application. 9. That on the morning of the 3rd of March, at about 6.30 a m., Mr Jas. Mackay handed the whole of the miners’ rights iu his possession to his private clerk, Mr Gerald Richard Dixney O’Halloran, to keep for him during the time he would be occupied while he visited certain survey or road parties. 10. That immediately thereafter, on the departure of Mr Mackay, Mr Brissenden (who was preseat when the rights were given into the charge of Mr O’Halloran by Mr Mackay) requested Mr O’Halloran to give him the bundle containing the rights for which he had made application ; that Mr O’Halloran complied with this request so made, and gave Mr Brissenden a bundle supposed to contain fifty-three miners’ rights, that about two hours afterwards, Mr O’Halloran returned the remainder of the miners’ rights to Mr Mackay, without informing him that he had given some of the number entrusted to him to Mr Brissenden; 12, That Mr

Brissenden, in accordance with an arrangement previously entered into with a person named James Smith, handed over at about 7,30 am. of the 3rd of March, the miners’ rights he had received from Mr O’flalloran, to a miner named Patrick Dillon, hand to miners assembled in the Ka* rangahape Spur, which was the centre of attraction of the Ohinemuri goldfields. 13. That Dillon did distribute the minors’s rights, which he received from Mr Brissenden in the manner intended, before ten o’clock on the morning of the 3rd March. 14. That some, if not all the rights so distributed, were exercised on the Karangahape spur after 10 a.m. on the 3rd March, but before the miners, who were receiving their rights in a legitimate manner at the warden’s tent, Mackaytown, could reach the Karangahape spur, and that this premature exercise of miners’ rights prevented Adam Porter and others from acquiring ground which they were desirous of taking up, 15, That in the opinion of this committee the miners’ rights issued by Gerald Kichard Dixney O’Halloran to Edward Torrens Brissenden, at about G 30 a.m. of the 3rd March, weie improperly and fraudulently issued by O’Halloran and received by Brissenden. 10. That three of the rights, numbered respectively 643, 64G, 048, so given by O’Halloran to Brissenden were in the name of the said Brissenden, and it would thus appear that he had a direct interest in the fraud committed. 17. That it further appears from evidence taken before the Royal Commission at Auckland, and from the warden’s books produced before this committee, that several rights in favor of Mr O’Halloran were included in an application made by a person named Robert Cassel, and that some or all of those rights were exercised (and must therefore have been issued) before the proper time. 18. That it is probable that the rights last referred to were given by O’Halloran to Brissenden on the morning of the 3rd March, at about 0.30 a.m., but the committee is not able to say with certainty when or how these particular rights were issued. 19. That it docs not appear from any evidence before the committee that Mr James Mackay was a party to the improper issue of miners’ rights, except in so far as the entrusting the rights to his private clerk O’Halloran may render him so ; nor does it seem that previous to the appointment of this committee he (Mr Mackay) had any knowledge of the manner in which the rights came into the possession of the miners before the proper time. 20. That with respect to the petitions referred to this committee by the House, signed by Adam Porter and others, I am directed to report that the petitioners have no legal claim against the colony for losses which they may have suffered by reason of the improper issue of miners’ rights, but that nevertheless as a matter of equity the sum of £l5O ought to be paid to Adam Porter and Company to reimburse them for certain legal expenses incurred in an action arising out of the said improper issue of miners’ rights. (Signed) John Bryce, chairman.”