Hokitika Guardian & Evening Star TUESDAY, OCTOBER 23rd, 1917. A REVENUE QUESTION.

Hokitika Guardian, 23 October 1917, Page 2

Hokitika Guardian & Evening Star TUESDAY, OCTOBER 23rd, 1917. A REVENUE QUESTION.

[t is understood that n very important question of revenue is involved to the" loeal bodies concerned, in the mAtter upon which a legal deputation is now engaged at Wellington, and some particulars of w hich appear in this issue. 1 he main point, us wo gather, is whether the local bodies are entitled to all the rents, royalties and fees: first, in respect to timber-cutting rights granted within warden’s timber areas; and, second, in respect to land known as the Midland .Railway Reservation. The decision of the question is quite beyond the lay mind, turning* entirely upon a' legal interpretation of the Statutes ranging over many years. The matter turns on the issue as to whether the timber revenue is. to be considered territorial or goldfields. If the former, it reverts to the Consolidated Fund, if the latter, to the loeal bodies. Tt was in 1899 'fchat the Mining Act appears first to have appropriated the revenue, or certain portions of it, to goldfields’ receipts, by declaring areas witbi n which timber-cutting rights may bo granted by the Warden exclusively. The following year this definition was extended to include areas within the Midland Railway Reservations. The n came the Timber and Flax Royalties Act of 1905, and in respect of this there is some confusion of legal opinion. But it Is contended that even here the statute is impliedly in favour of the local bodies, and earmarks a large volume of revenue specially to the local funds. In the consolidating statutes, it is held, the the rights claimed by the local bodies are fully preserved and kept alive, i Tlio decision on the matter vitally affects the impecunious bodies. The : Premier has indicated that be is ad- ] vised there is not any legal claim. \ bm he admits a moral obligation. In j these days when scraps of paper appear j j to be of little regard, it is to be hoped < that Mr Massey and his colleagues are I < not going to reject a fair claim be- j cause there is not any legal process to ' r establish it. Having admitted the , equity of the ease, he should recognise \ his plain duty in the matter, and help p the local bodies to get justice. A K simple and honourable way was sag- v gested by the deputation. That was for the Government to consent to an n originating summons, and allow the whole position to be argued before one „ or more learned judges. This is per- o fectly fair to both sides, and would si result in finality of a satisfying nature A

being reached. Without some definite's settlement oft these lines, the Government will be open to the charge that they are not only burking the question, but are doting -the local bodies a positive injustice. There is the future as well as the past to determine, und the revenue involved is of course a matter of very great concern to the local bodies. The action of Parliament threatens to cut revenue away in regard to other sources, st> this is a' time when the local bodies should be receiving all they are entitled to. Government grants are cut down to a n insignificant amount, and sums even voted by Parliament are held np indefinitely. The local bodies are welladvised in those circumstances to take up the cudgels on their own behalf and push their claims with all possible force. It remains for Mr Massey tc give the “square deal” he has spoken of in other days, and to allow the matter to be settled before a legal tribunal, the decision of which will put all possible doubt at rest, and give a clear interpretation of the law for future dealings in the matter.