TE ARO RECLAMATION.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 5382, 27 June 1878, Page 3

TE ARO RECLAMATION.

A special meeting of the City Council was held at 8 o'clock last evening for tho purpose of considering the following motion by Councillor Macdonald :—“ That the report of the Te Aro Reclamation Committee adopted by tho Council on the 4th day of_ April last be hereby rescinded, and that the City Solicitor be requested to incorporate in the To Aro Reclamation Bill he is now drafting (to lay before the General Assembly next session) a clause to the effect that the rights of all parties whose lands abut on or have frontage to the harbor of Port Nicholson shall be ascertained and dealt with in the manner provided for by parts 2 and 3 of the Public Works Act, 1876, and that if any of such parties shall be found to be entitled to compensation, the amount of such shall bo paid by the Council either in reclamation land adjacent to their property or in cash, as tho Council may elect.” The chair was occupied by his Worship the Mayor, and all the Councillors were present. Before the business was proceeded with, Councillor Hunter submitted that it would be as well that Mr. Travers’ opinion relative to his (Councillor Hunter’s) disqualification should be read.

The Matos said lie had instructed the Town Clerk to read it, and it was read accordingly. The Matos said that in future he would not decide questions as to whether members of the Council were qualified to speak and vote, as the Solicitor to the Council had stated that it was a matter for advice from the solicitors of the members themselves. Councillor Hunter said he noticed that it was on record that on the last occasion his Worship ruled that he (Councillor Hunter) could not speak and vote on the question, and that was the reason why the Council was adjourned in order that the opinion of the City Solicitor might be taken. Perhaps he (Councillor Hunter) might be permitted to say two or three words as to the course he intended to adopt. Of course, after the expression of opinion from the City Solicitor, it would be improper for him (Councillor Hunter) to take any part in the discussion on Councillor Macdonald’s motion; but if there should be any amendment which would separate it in any way from his individual interest, and only make it of interest to him as a shareholder in a company, he should be prepared then to take his part as a Councillor, and to risk the consequences of his action. He could remember an occasion in Wellington when he was supposed to have voted very much against his own interests. That was a very long time ago, but he had only to state that on all Derations ho was prepared to regard the interests of the city as certainly paramount to his own. (Hear, hear.) Councillor Hunter thereupon retired from his seat at the Council table. Councillor Fisher said he had searched the register at the Gas Company’s office, and had ascertained that John Rees George was the possessor of 42 £lO shares in that company, and he could not therefore he said to be a disinterested party. It was a cardinal maxim of law that no man should be judge in his own case, and he (Councillor Fisher) thought that if the people of this city were to have any respect for tho deliberations of the Council it was better that those members who wore interested in the question coming on should retire, as he was very glad to observe the gentleman who usually sat on his right had done. Ho might say, without any breach of confidence, that he had obtained the opinion of two or three eminent law practitioners, and they were all of opinion that the fact of any member holding shares in the Gas Company disqualified him from taking any part in tho proceedings. It was not likely that any person would be so vindictive as to take steps for the enforcement of tho penalty; but he thought it would bo only delicate, not to say decent, for any interested member to retire.

The Mayor aaid that with all due respect to Councillor Fisher's remarks, he must say that they were out of place, as he (the Mayor) had previously intimated that he did not intend in future to rule on this point, but would leave each member to take the responsibility on his own shoulders. [Councillor Diver : Hear, hear ; quite right.] Councillor Fisher: It would be more becoming if those gentlemen who are interested would withdraw from the discussion.

The Mayor called on Councillor Macdonald to move his resolution.

Councillor Macdonald, in rising to move the motion standing his name, said ho did so with a very full sense of the many important issues arising from it, but he thought it was always wise to retrace one’s steps when convinced that a mistake had been committed, and ho thought the Council was uuwiso in the action taken some time ago on this foreshore question. The Council appeared to have come to the decision it did simply because it seemed to the Councillors that if they did not arrive at that decision the reclamation would bo postponed indefinitely. He took his full share of blame as a member of that committee for what was done. Ho was frightened with the “ bogey ” so industriously held out that the reclamation would not be proceeded with. Ho would read the report of the committee, no that the members would understand thoroughly what he now asked them to rescind, as follows That the offer of the proprietors of the foreshore between Barber’s corner and Clydo-quay, viz., that they consent to waive all claim for compensation for loss of water frontage In consideration of their receiving GGft. of the new reclamation, with a street frontage, on the understanding that all the proprietors agree to the same, 2. That the proposal of the Cos Company, us embodied in their letter of the 15th March (copy herewith), bo acceded to, subject to a satisfactory arrangement being arrived at for the purchase of such portion of their property as Is required for the extension of Tory-strcot. 3, lhat the offer of the proprietors of the foreshore in tlm line of Willls-strcot, vk, that they consent to waive all claims for compensation for loss of water frontage In consideration or their receiving Wit. of the now re-

clmnation, they to ply contract price for said reclamiUion, and of half the width of the new street, to the eastward of their property, be acceded to, on tlie understanding that all the proprietors agree to the same. 4 That this committee be authoiised to treat ■wituuie "Wellington Gas Company for the purchase of sucli portion of their property as is required for the extension of Tory-streot; and that, mi such being satisfactorily arranged, the Corporation agree to grant a lease for twenty-one years of that portion of the foreshore to the north of the company’s property, referred to in tho general agreement with them and other adjoining proprietors, but terminable on the issue of the conveyance of the same. 5. That on the tinal laying out of the streets and building allotments on the proposed reclamation, suitable reserves be made for educational and charitable purposes.

Tlio cost of reclaiming that portion of the foreshore referred to in the report would be £6OOO. In round figures there were 4000 feet of frontage, and at the lowest computation this would be worth £3O per foot, which was equivalent to a total value of £120,000. The committee never dreamt when they arrived at their report that they were giving away a property worth £120,000 to a few citizens, in consideration of a possible claim that might be made against them. They had had placed before them, through the columns of the New Zealand Times, for some weeks past, a number of facts relating to the history of this city, information which he had no doubt many members of the Council had read with very much interest. It appeared from those records that the owners of the foreshore from what is now known as “Barber’s corner” had persistently brought before the notice of the Colonial Office, through the Governor, their claim to the enjoyment of the right of wharfage down to low-water mark. In a speech made by Mr. Macandrew to a deputation of shipwrights the other day he madeuse of the following remarkable expression: “ This had been a vexed question ever since the foundation of the colony. In the towns which were laid out by the New Zealand Company directions were given to reserve the foreshore within the municipal' boundaries. He was at Home at the time, and he remembered that the idea was this:—The Thames was built close up to in London, there was no roadway along its banks, and it was thought it would be better to preserve the new cities of this colony from such a state of things. He did not doubt that applied to Wellington as it did to other places. As far as he could see, nothing could bo done without legislation, and he did not know how far the Legislature would he warranted in granting such rights within the city boundaries.” Had that been done in its integrity, and plainly and fully, they would not have been discussing the question that night ; but if that speech was to be regarded as an indication of feeling as to what was the original intention, there never appeared to have been a greater right urged than that of wharfage down to low-water mark. That appeared to have been the whole sum and substance of the claim urged by the foreshore owners then, because better wharfage accommodation could be got elsewhere, and they consequently did not see why the Government should disturb their frontages. He did not think that however valuable the frontages along the foreshore might he in the year 1842, no member of the Council would say that these rights were worth to their owners a tenth of tire value which the resolution passed by the Council gave them. He did not think any of the owners were making £25 a year out of them, and the foreshore was simply an eysore and a nuisance to the rest of the city, and of no practical value to any of the parties who owned it. Whatever opinion he might have personally as to these professed rights, the proper way to deal with them was under the Public Works Act of 1876. It was stated that the Legislative Council would oppose the Reclamation Bill which the Council intended to bring before the Assembly, unless it contained a provision that the owners of the foreshore would be arranged with ; and it was also stated that the members for the city were averse to any Bill that did not contain such a provision. This seemed to him a very curious argument. They were asked to give away £120,000 worth of land for certain claims for which had been made but never proven. If the Public Works Act was sufficient to do justice to the whole of the colony in respect to private lauds which might be taken for public purposes to develop the great railway policy, surely it might be deemed good enough for the owners of the Te Aro foreshore. If the Legislative Council and the General Assembly objected to the Bill, he thought that if the people of Wellington agitated, and he had no doubt they would very forcibly agitate if the Bill were opposed, the Parliament would recognise that the people were the best judges of what was needed for their own localrequiremonts.and would not hindera great work in consequence of the petty jealousies or ill feeling of certain individuals. He should be very glad to see some arrangement come to by which the owners of Willis-street could be met, say by widening the street 30ft., say within seven or ten years. The street was too narrow, and if a fire broke out both sides of it would be in ruins. He thought his plan of dealing with this vexed question was the best and most equitable that could be devised. It was a matter of such great importance to the city—he did not think a matter of equal importance involving so large an alienation of public funds had ever come before the Municipal Council; and therefore there was a greater necessity to give very careful attention to what they were about to do. He hoped the Council would act carefully, looking to the importance of the issues involved, and would come to a deci-ion to rescind the resolution previously arrived at. Councillor Allan seconded the motion. Councillor Fisher said that since the passin" of the previous resolution the people had expressed themselves dissatisfied with that decision. They had interested persons on one side, and public rights on the other, and it would be wrong in the Council to ignore the feelings of people who were as capable of expressing their opinion in this matter as was the Council, and it would be wrong to lay down any dictum that could be dogmatically opposed to the good sense of the people themselves. He was convinced there were rights on the side of those who held property on the foreshore, and it was now a question what the extent of that right was. He was one of those willing to concede the sixty-six feet, and that arrangement would have been carried out provided no objection had been raised; hut the whole question had been lifted beyond the regions of the City Council, and had become an abstruse legal question, upon which the Council was neither an impartial nor competent tribunal to give an opinion. If Councillor Macdonald had no objection, he would propose the following as an amendment, —That it be an instruction to the solicitor in pieparing the Bill to include the following :—“ Every person having any estate or interest in any lauds whioh may he injuriously affected by the reclamation works authorised by this Act, or suffering any damage from the,exercise of any of tho powers conferred by the Act, shall be entitled to compensation, to be ascertained ia the manner and upon the conditions set forth in Part 111. of tho Public Works Act, 1876.”

Councillor George said ho had really hoped the Council would have had something more definite put before it than the mere assertions of Councillor Macdonald. Councillor Macdonald said the Council was going to give away a frontage of 4000 feet, but they could not give away what was already possessed hy the owners of property on the foreshore. He could not conceive that the concession was worth anything like the amount stated by Councillor Macdonald. Councillor Macdonald assumed it was a matter of indifference to the owners of property on the To Aro foreshore whether they had a frontage to the harbor or a frontage to a street. But it was a matter of great concern to them, especially in a wooden city, that they should not be deprived of their frontage on the harbor. They might as well build up a brick wall in front of a man’s house as to taka the water frontage away from the owners of the foreshore properties. If the motion were carried, they might give up all notion of getting a Bill passed through the General Assembly this year, because the clause in the standing order's of Parliament provided that thirty days' notice of the intention to bring in a private Bill should be given. Last session a Bill was passed giving compensation to owners of property in Lyttelton who wore deprived of their water frontage. At Capetown a similar case occurred ; it was carried to tiro Privy Council, and the result was that the municipality had to pay a very considerable sum in the shape of compensation. That would also bo the result hero it the course proposed by Councillor Macdonald were agreed to. Councillor Allen said ho thought the first step the owners of foreshore properties should take was to establish their rights, and then havo those rights referred to arbitration for the purpose of determining what amount of compensation should bo paid, Councillor Diver wished to move an amendment to Councillor Macdonald’s resolution, to the effect that all the words after “ 1876” be left out. If these words were left out he would support the resolution. Ho thought there was more than a necessary amount of fear that the owners of property on the foreshore would not bo fairly dealt with. If the provisions of the Public Works Act wore enforced, no doubt the owners of property would

receive the amount of compensation to whioh that Act entitled them ; and lie for one would endeavor to see that they would be liberally compensated for any loss or damage they had sustained. Let them establish their right, and if they established their right they should then receive a good amount of compensation. He believed that a great deal of the fear that existed, and opposition raised, came from those persons who had doubts as to whether they would be able to establish a right to have any compensation awarded to them. He thought that respect should be shown to the opinion of Mr. Travers, and that gentleman stated that according to the resolution already passed by the Council, Councillor Hunter would receive compensation whether he was entitled to it or not. This showed clearly that the resolution should be rescinded. They had no right to throw away money indiscriminately to people whether or not they had any right to receive it. A threat was held out that if this resolution were rescinded the Legislative Council would throw out any Bill which the Council endeavored to get passed, on the ground that certain parties would be deprived of their rights. If the Council threw away money indiscriminately, and went to Parliament with a Bill to enable them to do so, would not the Legislative Council refuse to pass such a measure, and say that the ratepayers would be robbed of their money if they allowed it to pass ? (Hear, hear.) He hoped Councillor Macdonald would agree to the amendment he proposed. Councillor Macdonald said he was prepared to accept the amendment proposed by Councillor Diver.

Councillor Fisher said the amendment ha had proposed would have to he dealt with before Councillor Diver’s amendment could be taken.

Tho Mayor stated that Councillor Fisher's amendment had not been seconded, and he could not accept it. Councillor Greenfield hoped the Council would adhere to the original motion passed on this subject. It was agreed between the Council aud the property holders that the 66 feet should be given ; that arrangement had been made in good faith, and he thought it would be advisable to stick to it. If not, a great deal of money would only be thrown into the hands of the lawyers, because every owner of property on the Te Aro foreshore conceived he had a right, and would stick out for it. He would therefore oppose the motion proposed by Councillor Macdonald. Councillor Dixon was as sorry as any man in Wellington that this reclamation was delayed ; but if a mistake had been made, and there was still time to rectify that mistake, the Council should not hesitate to do so. He conceived that under all the circumstances he was simply doing his duty to the ratepayers by voting for the resolution proposed by Councillor Macdonald.

Councillor Moss said that until he had taken his seat that evening, and heard Councillors speak, his miud had not been made up on the question. They had made a certain arrangement with the Gas Company, and he thought that arrangement ought to be adhered to. He would agree to the rescinding of a portion of the committee’s report, hut he considered that clauses 2 aud 4 should be retained. With regard to tho owners of property on the foreshore at the head of the bay, he thought they were entitled to compensation, and a good amount of compensation, too. He thought the arangement made with the Gas Company should be strictly adhered to, and faithfully and honestly carried out. He begged to move that clauses 1 aud 3 of the report be rescinded. Councillor Allen seconded the amendment, and iu doing so said he would most strenuously oppose the rescinding of clauses 2 and 4. He thought the company were bound iu honor to carry out the arrangement that had been made with the Gas Company. He spoke perfectly disinterestedly iu this matter, as it was not hia good fortune to be a shareholder in that company ; but he thought they were bound iu honor to carry out the arrangement that had been made with that company in perfect good faith, and relying on which the company had sent orders Home for new and expensive plant. With regard to the proprietory rights along the foreshore, he should like to see the question tested iu a friendly way, in order that such an evil result as expensive litigation might he avoided. (Hear, hear.) Councillor Fisher pointed out that if Councillor Moss’s amendment were carried Councillor Macdonald would have to abandon his resolution, because if they gave 66ft. to the Gas Company they would have to give 66ft. all round. (Hear, hear.) Councillor Logan said that, viewing the fact that the land which it was proposed to give would be worth so much money, aud worth so much in excess of what would be taken, he felt bound to support the resolution proposed by Councillor Macdonald. The Council was not a competent tribunal to deal with the important legal question that was involved as to what rights property owners had outside their Crown grants. The Mayor ; Before putting the question I should like to say a few words, and perhaps the Council will excuse mo if I refer to the past. My own idea was, when this subject of reclaiming tho Te Aro foreshore was first mooted some years ago, that a difficulty would arise with the owners of the foreshore, and I, in my own mind, thought that the difficulty would bo fairly got over by giving a good street frontage round the backs of the present properties. I made ray opinion very generally known at that time ; hut afterwards it came about that various meetings were held with these property-owners, and an agreement was signed whioh the Council ultimately approved of. Now I am still of tho same opinion I was in the first instance—that a street frontage would be as much as they are fairly entitled to; but au arrangement has been made, an agreement has been drawn up, and the Council has pledged itself to a certain extent to adopt a particular course. Now, how Councillors can so glibly come forward and speak in the manner they have to-night against their own act and deed, is, to say tho least of it, astonishing ; the whole of tho members being present, with all the facts before them they now possess, I have not heard a single fact brought forward tonight that we had not in our possession before. I suppose, like the one Irishman who spoke of the other eleven as being the most stubborn people he ever knew iu the world, I may say I am astonished on the present occasion. No doubt it is a very serious question, and therefore it probably accounts for Councillors thinking they are justified in reviewing their previous conclusions ; but there is a good deal to be said on the other side. Councillor Macdonald has estimated the value of the property, when reclaimed, at one million sterling. 1 suppose that when this reclamation is completed wo shall get 5 per cent, profit; that will bo £50,000. Suppose we delay this for a single year—it may not be, but it ia quite on the cards, —there is a loss of £50,000 ; and the delay may bo for two years, and even then you have not settled the question of compensation. There aro the law costs then to bo added. I have not so very much to say against tho rescinding of clauses 1 and 3 of the report as I have against rescinding clauses 2 and 4. Now, iu this case tho Council has gone to tho utmost length it possibly could. Tho Council had signed an agreement with the Gas Company, and the Gas Company had dono the same, and it would have been an accomplished fact but for a late member of the Gas Company, I have thought tho matter over to-day, and have come to the conclusion that the Council will be considered dishonorable if they break this agreement with the Gas Company. Wo may not bo legally bound, but morally wo ore, aud [if it were a private transaction on the part of any member of this Council, I think he would bo ashamed to withdraw from tho position ho had taken up. But members of the Corporation seemed to think that what would be morally wrong in an individual capacity, is by members of tho Council perfectly just aud honorable. I venture to differ from that opinion, and think that it still remains a dishonorable transaction. Every member of this Corporation would be acting dishonorably to withdraw from that position. Now, wo havo hoard a good deal about Councillor J, A. Allan speaking of Mr. Phavazyn's action. He referred particularly to his remark that tho owners of Willis-street frontage had no claim whatever ; hut when hia own pocket is slightly touched, and the Gas Company’s infringed, ho says they are in a totally different position altogether, and they havo rights and privileges; but having road tho documents in tho Crown Lands Office I find that the wording of the documents ia the same, aud I fall to sea any difference—that will be a question for tho lawyers to settle. I shall have very much pleasure in supporting tho amendment moved by Councillor Moss.

Councillor Greenfield considered that if the Council granted this concession to the Gas Company they would have to treat all owners of property along the foreshore in the same way. If not, they would destroy the uniformity of the reclamation. (Hear, hear.) Councillor Macdonald, in reply, strenuously opposed the Gas Company being treated in any way differently to otherpeople. The matter was of such grave importance to the citizens that he must insist on asking the Council to agree to his motion. ■ Private interests must not be allowed to clash with public rights, and

he objected entirely to private compromises being made in a matter involving the interests of the public, and in which so very large on amount of money was at stake. Councillor Moss’s amendment f >r the rescinding of clauses 1 aud 3 only was then put and negatived by 6 to 5. Councillor Diveu’s amendment, for the striking out of all the words in Councillor Macdonald's motion after “1876,” was then put, and declared to he carried on the voices. The motion, as amended, was then put and carried, and the Council adjourned at 11.6 p.m.