MR. BARTON IN DEFENCE.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 5505, 18 November 1878, Page 2

MR. BARTON IN DEFENCE.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE NEW ZEALAND TIMES. Sir, —Mr. Dransfield, in addressing the electors of this city, condemns my action in reference to the Thorndon Reclamation and Hospital Transfer Bill, as being a gross neglect of the interests and welfare of my constituents. He informs the electors that it was my “ duty to have supported the Billthat it was my duty to have known the contents of the Bill,” aud “ to have gone and inquired about it and that it was not the duty of him (Mr. Dransfield) to “ run after Mr. Barton and explain everything.” Perhaps it was not Mr. Dransfield’s duty to “ run after me to explain everything ” to me ; but I think he will hardly contend that it was his duty, as promo I er of the Bill, to run away from me. On the evening when the Bill was under discussion, and its provisions were being unfavorably criticised by nearly every independent member, JVIr. Dransfield and two other gentlemen who appeared to be very desirous it should pass, pervaded the House, and although all three gentlemen, and certain others whom I will not name, were exhibiting a lively interest and activity in the lobbies, they all took care to keep aloof from me. This is the more strange, because, according to Mr. Dransfield, my influence in the House is so considerable that the mere .fact of my announcing that I had not been consulted by the promoters of the Bill turned four votes against it. If I am the fortunate possebsdfr of such influence I hope to maintain and extend it for the benefit of my constituents by carefully separating myself from every suspicious-looking transaction. Whether this Bill was a suspicious transaction, or whether it was favorable to the progress of the city of Wellington, and would tend to diminish the burdens of the ratepayers, it is now my purpose to discuss. For my own part I am strongly inclined to Sir George Grey’s opinion that nearly every endowment, even those administered by bishops and other spiritual persons, has a tendency to become diverted from its purpose for the benefit of private individuals, and I feel that if the Wellington Corporation endowments, under such a Bill as the one in question, were destined to bo faithfully applied in reduction of the rates, it would be an instance of Spartan virtue as un precedeuted as it would be gratifying. Mr. Dransfield is quite right in asserting that it was my duty to have known the contents of the Bill and its proposed amendments on the Order Paper ; and I now inform him that when I was addressing the House I had the Bill and Order Paper in my hand, and was fully aware of the contents of both. What I was rot acquainted with was, what was behind the Bill, aud it was my- knowledge of the one and my ignorance of the other that decided me to adopt the course*! took. There was enough on the smfacc of the. Bill to awaken suspicion, aud I beard enough during the debate and in the lobbies to make me believe that there was something going on behind the scenes of which the House was ignorant. Sir, the h°ad and front of Mr. Hutchison’s o-fending is that he signed away £2970 of the ratepayers’ money without sufficient knowledge of what he was doing, aud under circumstances that ought to have aroused his vi-fiance. Mr. Dransfield, with strange inconsistency, makes me an offender became I, in the absence of any information and under circumstances well calculated to excite mv distrust, refused to vote away , £120,000 cash, some £40,000 or £50,000 worth of hospital reserves, the site of our future railway station and wharf, and the expected endowment of •# harbor trust with probably over £250,000. I have said that this Bill was surrounded by circumstances that excited my distrust, and I may add that several previous Bills, respecting Corporation projects, and also respecting these Wellington Hospital reserves, failed this very session to pass the House, because each of them contained what was either suspected or detected to be a public wrong. The first was the Te Aro reclamation Bill. The injustice of its provisions was exposed by me at the time, and I need not repeat what has been already so fully published* The table of the ' House was strewn with petitions against it, and it died in the Pxdvate Bills Committee room. It is to be deplored that so excellent a project as the Te Aro reclamation was made dependent on a Bill so audaciously unjust in Us provisions. The promoters of that Bill, whoever they may be, violated the express instructions (by resolution) of the City Council, aud Councillor Macdonald complained of its having been smuggled past them without any discussion of its provisions by the representatives of the ratepayers. The next was the Wellington Reserves BUI, introduced by Colonel Whitmore on the 7th August into the Legislative Council, its ostensible object beiog to amend mistakes in a previous statute, but its real object being something else which, to judge by the debates, its promoters seem to have been anxious to keep in the dark. Colonel Whitmore was candid enough to say that u although the Law Officers of the Crown had twice explained the matter to him, he confessed his inability to make it understood for to Ins mind it was rather obscure. Then ensued a debate on the Wellington Hospital reserves aud hospital trust, which was far from edifying or creditable. Mr, Maute I pronounced tho Bill to be “ thoroughly inexplicable,” and its preamble one of •‘startling audacity.” Sic Francis Bell said it came before the Council in “a very deceitful guise." Hr. Hall demanded that before eny decision was come to upon it « map should he laid before the Chamber, and suggested the adjournment of the debate. Accordingly the debate was adjourned, and tberemon the Bid wes sent to the Bocal Bills Committee., On the 4th September the debate was resumed, and then Sir Francis JBcli directly charged the Bill as “containing, allegations” which ‘ wore “ untrue, and that its real object was different from its ostensible ob-ect. Mr. Mantel! also attacked it with considerable warmta.

Mr. Waterhouse, who was defending the Bill, admitted ‘‘mistakes’' and “censure attachable to tho persons who made those mistakes. Tho Bill was, however, read a second time, and on the 25th September it came on for discussion in committee. Then Mr. Mantel! moved that it he committed that day six months ; every speaker on that occasion (including Mr. Waterhouse himself) agreeing that the Bill ought not to be allowed to pass ; in fact, the only point discussed was the manner in which it should be kicked downstairs. Mr. Mautell spoke of tho “ great difficulty the Local Bills Committee had in getting at the evidence,” and said that “even after tho committee ' i had reported, it came to his knowledge that other evidence of an important nature had '"escaped them altogether, for the very sufficient reason that they did not know of its existence.” The Bill was theu thrown out, and followed the Te Aro Reclamation Bill to a dishonored grave. The third Bill was the Wellington Corporation Land Grant Bill, introduced into the House of Representatives by Mr. Bunny, the member for. Woirarapa, whose name was printed at the top of the Bill as it-* introducer. On the second reading, my colleague, Mr. Hunter, announced to tho House tb.it It was he who introduced it at the request of the Wellington Corporation. No doubt there had been unfavorable lobby comments on its being introduced by an outside member mstoad of by a representative of the city. The debate was opened by Mr. Richardson presenting a petition agaiost the BiU from Walter Turnbull and five others. Then Mr. Macandrew, MiVstor for Public Work*,objected to it on the ground that ‘‘it contained land within the proclaimed railway reserve, which it would bo necessary te exclude.” Mr. Whitaker objected to tho proposed endowment being given to auv but a Harbor Board. He tohl the House that he had ts that day been on the Wellington Wharf”—which fact seemed to decide him in the opinion that the Corporation ought not to have any more powers or property entrusted to its charge. Mr. Brandon supported the BU 1 - as was naturally to bo expected of that gentleman. Mr, Richardson, late Minister of PabUc Works, agreed with Mr. Macandrew iu. opposing the BiN, because the proposed endowment came within the licrUs of the “ Wellington and Hufct Railway Reserve, and it was absolutely certain that it would bewaotfd.for railwr v purposes,” and he hoped the Minister of Works world “take care that the laud was L-*t given to the Corporation.” Mr. McLcai. a very e c* peilenccd merchant and sbipnwu said “tho sooner the management of the wl; f aud harbor was taken out of the hands f the Corporation the better it would be or Wellington,” and he concluded his spec i by saying that “ if the Bill ever came back * the House from tho Private Bills he would take care to give sufficient reaso s why this land should not be given to the Corporation.” Mr. Hunter, in reply, admitted that “ the question whether the Corporation or a Harbor Board should have the management of the harbor was a very large question,” and that “ session after session the matter had been brought before the House, and honorable members had been accustomed to hear constant discussions as to the relative merits of the two bodies.” The BiU was then referred* to the Private BiPi Committee, and as I never heard anything more about it, I presume it lies interred beside its brothers, the Te Aro BiU and the Wellington Reserves Bilk While all these discussions were proceeding in the. t*vo Houses, there were other and parallel discussions taking place in the City Council aud Chamber of Commerce, which showed me that the handing over of reclamations to the Corporation without acy stipulation or condition whatever was not so clearly desirable a thing as Messrs. Dransfield and his friends in the Frees would now make it appear; while as to the Hospital transfer the utter silence In the City Council and elsewhere upon the subject was almost as significant as was the noise and disputations upon the reclamation and harbor questions. I will now proceed to show wbat was taking p^ace. In *be middle of last July Mr. Krull addressed the Chamber of Commerce, urging that “the desirabUity of connecting the railway with the wharf should be impressed upon the Government;” and he also urged the desirabiUty of “ taking portion of the reclamations for a wharf and wet dock.” On the 30th of last August the Chamber of Commerce disemsed the question of the creation of a Harbor Board, aud 'they adopted a report ou the subject, in which they objected to the Corooration acting as a Harbor Board, and suggested the proper constitution of one, adding that “one-half the proceeds of the Tborrdon and Te Aro reclamation should be set apart m an endowment for such Harbor Board.” They used these words—“ The comm*!tee of this Chamber has had under its earnest consideration the question of the establishment of a Harbor Board for this port, and the BiU for that purpose pcepa-ed on behalf of the Corporation. The committee is deeply impre.ied with the importance of the subject, not only to the mercantile I jdy, but to the whole community of Wellington, whose interests are largely dependent on the shipping and commercial business of the port.” . . . “The functions of the two bodies (the City Council and a Harbor Board), and the c!h°s of subjects u Ith which they have to deal, are so widely different that the comrrHtee is convinced (hat full justice can scarcely he done to both by the same Board.” pn the motion of Captain Mclntyre it was resolved to send n copy of this report to the Corporation, and on the motion of Mr. Deccan it was farther resolved to send another copy to the Government, so n to secure the endowment of the Board out of these reclamations. On the 10th September, at the City Council meeting, that body discussed the above report of the Chamber of Commerce, and on that oorasion the Mayor resented the of the Chamber thafcaHarbor Board of merchants be a better judge o! what would advance the tradn and commerce of We; s ng?on than the very able and intelligent municipal councillors whom the ratepayer-, have elected to lookafter our street formation,, pa - 3g, lighting, water supply, &c. Mr. DransfuM “objected to the Chamber of Commerce’s ! terfefence.” He strongly objected to “ Board? ” He denied the “ gross mismanagement” of t» o wharf, and claimed the wharf m the property of the Corporation—“a* much the private property of ratepayers as any of the mumetal reserves.” In short, Mr. Drausfield seemed to think that the merchants ought to be humbly thankful that they got leave from the representatives of the citizens to bring the<r shipping alongside our city wharves at ah, and his whole tone towards the merchants was that they had better mind, what they were about and keep civil. On the motion of Councillor Macdonald it wm then that “the Chamber of Commerce be advis'd that the City Council ca-jnot endorse the views held by the Chamber r--peeking the formation .and endowment of a Harbor Beard.” This resolution seems to have been duly forwarded to the Chamber of Commerce, ami accordingly on the 23rd Septembar the merchants met to consider it. On the motion of Hr. Levin it was resolved “that the Chamber regrets that the City Council caunot endorse the viewi held by the chamber regarding the foundation and endowment of a Haroor Board.” Mr. Levin, in moving this resolution, is reported to have said be “ did not consider the City Council competent to look after the intert t« of the whafvrs and harbor matters generally. Their (the City Council’s) interops were centered in another direction. It had 4>eea pretty generally discussed by the Council, and considered a fact, that the wharf .had been badly managed.” At th»s meeting Mr. Dransfield, not heteg on h f s own civic throne, but only speaking in his capacity as a member of the Chamber, seems to have had a lucid iu- ' terval, in which he spoke reasonably, saying that “ he considered that public bodies qould not look after tho management of wharves find harbors so well as pi Irate bodies.” By this I presume Mr, Drausfield meant that in bis opinion tho merchants themselves coldd manage tho wharves aud shipping interests better than the City Councillors do. He paid the merchants tho compliment (while he was In their company at all events) of supposing that - they knew better what would best advance trade and commerce than a Board consisting of a doctor, a reporter, a licensed victualler, a land speculator, a timber merchant, and a few other gentlemen of various trades and professions, who make very good managers of the affairs of a city on land, but are none of them experienced in water, X be* Feve. Mr. Reeves wound up the debate by asserting that “ the City Council wai not a body properly constituted to control tho harbor.” I will give one other extract Rustratlvc of tho difference between the management of a Harbor Board of merchants, whose chief object is to encourage trade, and a Harbor Board of City Councillor, who.;e great atei fn Re is “ rates.” In Auckland (managed by a Harbor Bjard) the harbor dues (I quoto from a paper dated 27th Juno, 1878,) arc—pilotage, 3d. and 2d. per ton. In Wellington (at same date), (id. and 4d. per ton. In Auckland, wharfage ijd.; in Wel’iogton, 2d. to 3d, I am notawa-e

that there has been any change since June either in tho Auckland or Wellington rates. Such were the proceedings in and out of Parliament prior to the discussion of the Bill for handing o»’er the Thorndon Reclamation and Wellington Hospital to the Corporation. That BiU came on for discussion on its merits not till the night of the 26th October, almost the last working night at the very end’of tho session. Tho Attorney-General briefly moved, that the Bill be considered in committee, and thereupon arose a debate, in which nearly every speaker was seeking information, aud no one seemed to obtain any. The proposal to transfer the management and maintenance of the Hospital to the Corporation—the proposal to relieve the trustees of the Hospital from liabilities in respect of these reserves about which there had been such heated discussions in the other branch of the Legislature—the proposal to enable the Corporation to borrow £120,000 as “ a special loan sanctioned by the ratepayers within the meaning of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1876 ” .(wlieu it was noterioas that the ratepayers had never sanctioned it in the manner required by that Act, nor in any other manner whatever) —the absence of all previous dr.cusiion of these proposals either in the City Council or in the Press, and of all explanation on the subject by the Attorney-General when movlog h‘s motion —the absence of all explanation why a richlyendowed institution was to be transferred from a trust expressly created for its'management to a municipal corporation already overburdened with the heavy work of making a new city, of paving aud lighting it, of a. watccworks scheme, a harbor works scheme, a gigantic drainage scheme, and especially when that body was accused on all sides of ia» competency and neglect of. the work they already had in hand,-—all these considerations roused the hostility of the House of Representatives, and ultimately determined me to openly separate myself from the Bill. Sir William Fitzherbert a ] so separated himself fro i the BiU, I presume for similar reasons. If the few words I said influenced four votei against the BiU, what must have been the effect of the long and able speech of that experienced and sagacious politician, so, tang identified with tho best interests of the city and province. It is noticeable that while Mr. Dransfiold and b‘s friends in the Press violently and eagerly call me to account, (key take care not to dwell too much ou Sit* WRUam Flfczherbsrt’s attitude towards their Bill. Having thus, I hope, shown that mv opposition to the BiU did nob result from “ negligence of the welfare and inter' vis of my constituency,” I have now a practical suggestion to make. The paramount object with the citizens of Wellington ought to' be to secure that the natural pre-eminence of this harbor as the central port of Now Zealand the future progress of the town sbaU be made independent of all poßteal vicissitudes. That object cau only be attained by making the export, import, and storage of merchandise easier aud cheaper at Wellington than it can be made in any port now competing with it and less conveniently situated, and also by connecting the port with interior country by a railway suitable for heavy traffic. The Rimutaka line., with its grade of 1 in 15, is notoriously unsuitable, but I am given to understand that a route to the West . Coast Las been discovered whose steepest grade is liu 50. If that be so, I should like to-see the making of that line started at ou?e, and I therefore should propose that so much of the Thorndon reclamation as is not required for railway purposes should be sold to defray the cost of the - railway, and that the Te Aro reclamation be set apart for the endowment of a harbor trust. I lately asked the Minister for Public Works* (Mr. Macandrew) whether, if the citizens were willing to allow the sale of part of the Thorndon reclamation for the purpose, the Government would start the making of the West Coast railway, aud he repUecl that they would in such case commence it forthwith. I ask the ratepayers to consider this matter, and I ask the Chamber of Commerce to consider it likewire.—l am, <kc., George Eujott Bahton.