MEETING OF PROPERTY HOLDERS, TE ARO FORESHORE.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 5416, 6 August 1878, Page 2

MEETING OF PROPERTY HOLDERS, TE ARO FORESHORE.

An influential meeting of persons interested in the Te Aro foreshore was held at the office of the Chamber of Commerce yesterday afternoon. Mr. Pearce occupied the chair, aud said that he had called the meeting at the request of those persons owning land at the Te Aro foreshore. The business, he presumed, before the meeting was to consider the Bill that had passed its first reading ia the House, known as the Harbor of Port Nicholson Reclamation Bill It would doubtless be remembered by most of those present that the Bill referred to was not a new one. It was originally introduced, as far' back as 1874, by Mr. Bunny, with the object of reserving land for reclamation. This Bill was at that time thrown out. Subsequently it was again introduced by Dr. Grace, who' stated to the House that he looked upon the Bill with a certain amount of suspicion. There was then a lapse, and the Bill appears to have lain dormant until last year, when it was again passed by the Lower House, but was thrown out by the Legislative Council. Captain Fraser stated that it was a private Bill, and ou that ground it was not passed. Last year there was a Bill passed called the Lyttelton Harbor Board Bill, and another Called the Lyttelton Compensation Bill. The ' owners of land at Te Are, Mr. Pearce said, were similarly placed to those who owned land, at Port Lyttelton. He considered the. Bill now before the House not sufficiently explicit. It would be remembered that, prior to the Bill being introduced into the-House last session, there was an arrangement made with the Corporation as to what consideration or compensation should be given to ownors ofTand at the foreshore. This was adopted on the 4th April, 1877, but since then the Municipal Council had thought fit to rescind that Bill, and produce the one now; before'the House,: lie apprehended that those persons holding land were not prepared to leave the question of compensation to any tribunal, whether they had the right or not. He considered that the Corporation should have told them what compensation would be given before commencing, the works. He thought the Bill affected private rights, and should not have been passed. Mr. Taylor did not think that there was any possibility of the Bill passing through the House. ' .

Mi - . Pearce apprehended that when the Billwas read a second time some member of the House would ask whether or not the Bill was a private one. The matter would then be referred to the Speaker, and if he (the Speaker) did not consider it as such, it was impossible to say what the result would be. Mi - . Pearce then said that during the years 1855 and 1856 _ the Provincial Council of New Zealand ‘ passed an Act called the Harbor Reserves Act, which stated that all those persons who had erected wharves fronting the foreshore should,, have a pre-emptive right to the laud on which ‘ such wharves were erected—that is to say, if any person required these lauds they would have to pay the same value as for the adjoining laud. This was looked upon as a recognised fact by those who thought fit to erect wharves at that time. These lands were < ’ sold by the Crown, and advertised in the Government Gazette, in which special attention was called to the fact regarding the water frontage. That Act, Mr. Pearce stated, had never been repealed. He thought that if the’ Corporation did not come to some understanding with the owners of the land,’those’so " interested should do all in their power to oppose the passing of the Bill. Even last year, the speaker said, Mr. Hart, In' opposing the Bill, said that he considered it should not pass until certain amendments wore made. These amendments were read by the Chairman, from Hansard, as ifollowa : “ The amendments would also provide for tho settlement of the claims of those persons who were entitled to water frontages at-the head of tiie bay, which frontages were reserved to them by the terms of the agreement under which the Corporation was entitled to this property, which agreement was issued pursuant to tho Public Reserves Act, 1854. The amendments would also provide for the creation of a sinking fund, by which the whole proceeds of the laud would be applied to the extinguishment of the debt, and they also provide that the water frontage rights should bo settled before, any money was raised.” ■ ( ■ Mr. Brandon, sen., thought that a',com- • mittee should be appointed to prepare a peti-’ tion opposing the passing of the Bill. .Ho remarked that there was a bad practice instituted in the House of bringing forward private Bills as public ones. He thought as regards private Bills that notice should be given long ■ before they were brought before tho House. - ... ! Hr. Kuull moved the following resolution, and said ho could not . speak too strongly of the City Council. Tho resolution, which was seconded by Mr. Compton, was as follows;; That a committee be appointed to watch the progress of , the Te,; Aro Reclaajmtiba.TßSH through Parliament, in the interests ot ( theowners of water frontage. .The committee to

consist of Messrs. Pearce, jD. Anderson, Compton, W. W. Taj lor, W. Spicer, F. A. Kruli, and iH. Mace, with power to add to their number. : The committee to take such steps as they may deem necessary to protect the rights of property-owners. The motion was carried unanimously. Mr. Taylor said that oil the property-

holders had to do was' to bind themselves together. He thought their beat course under the circumstances was to ask the Council to stay the progress of the Bill until some definite tinderstanding had been arrived at’. If they did not then the land-owners could bestir themselves and do their utmost to oppose the Bill being passed. „ Mr. Pearce reminded the meeting that’ the second reading of the Bill had been fixed for to-morrow (Wednesday), and it was in charge of Mr. Hunter, one of the city members. Mr. Barton, the other member, had been asked to take charge of it, but had refused on the ground that it was a private Bill and consequently 1 interfered with private rights. Mr. Hunter , subsequently said that he considered it was the duty of one of the city members to take charge of it, and it was accordingly left in his hands. Mr. Pearce then wont on to say that it was a very remarkable fact that when the Bill was first introduced not a single member of the Lower ' House said a word regarding the clause. Anyone could turn to Hansard of 1877, there it would be found that the Bill was ■ read a third time before a single word was said.

Mr. Robert Miller said that the Corporation had made arrangements to secure a sea frontage before the Bill Was passed. . Mr. Brandon said that notice should always he given to Parliament, before - introducing private Bills. In former days he said there was a provision in the Act the same as in England, but it had been altered some few years ago. The consequence was that many Bills were declared public that really were not so, and he thought the sooner they returned to the English system the better. After some little discussion of an unimportant nature, the meeting terminated.