Mr. Rees at Ormond.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume IX, Issue 1005, 29 November 1881, Page 2

Mr. Rees at Ormond.

Alr. AV. L. Rees addressed the settlers at Ormond on Saturday night last. Bruces’s Hall was crowded • there being a number of inland settlers present, as well as a fair sprinkling from town. The chair was occupied by Air. P. Barrie, who prefaced the introduction j, of the speaker by a few remarks. Air. Rees received a complimentary reception, but as his opening remarks were taken to be reflections on the candidates for election—and as it was not considered to be an election meeting—nor Mr. Rees expected to deliver an electioneering address—they were a signal for interruption. After several delays, Air. Rees settled down to the subject matter for which the meeting was called—viz., that of the “ New Zealand Land Settlement Company.” He traversed much of the same ground, and touched, more or less, upon the same subjects, as at the Gisborne meeting, and his views and explanations were received with due favor, until he introduced a candidate’s name, which, in every instance, ended in an uproar. This was especially noticeable in reference to Air. Gannon, who, independently of having many supporters there, was absent from the meeting. At even an early period of Air. Rees’s attempted address it was difficult to make anything like an intelligible report, but when Air. Rees lost his temper, and called Air, Georgo ’ Jackson a “ loafer ” —and then, sub.se- . quently asked one in the meeting whon hissed him to come forward, which he ’ did, and hissed audibly in solo—our reporter relinquished his task, and the proceedings degenerated J into general tumult. Mr. Tucker managed to be heard to the extent that, if he had known his friend Rees would have had to submit to the indignities to which he was then subject, he would not have asked him Whh.l. : an ex P reß sion which was followed by ironical cheers. Mr. tucker, however, resumed, and besought his friend Mr. Rees not to say another word. Mr. Rees, however, did tty to say a good many more words, but they were drowned in interruption. Amongst other assertions Air Rees

made was one accusing Mr. Ferris, who put some questions to him, of being in Mr, Locke’s pay, and that Mr. Locke had suggested the questions he would not ask for himself. Mr. Locke’s supporters then took umbrage, which fact, supported by Mr. Locke’s personal denial, made the scene very lively. Silence being temporarily restored, Mr. Was heard to say something about the'Land Company building a breakwater, forming roads, and building bridges (signs of dissent), which would ease the burden of expense to private persons. In reply to a remark as to why he did not “ roll into Mr. Locke, the same as he did in Gisborne.” Mr. Rees said he did not want to touch Mr. Locke, as his remarks referred principally to Mr. Gannon. Another storm here arose, which took some minutes to quell. Another lull occurring, Mr. Rees began about Mr. McDonald’s connection with the Harbour Bill, which was carried through the Lower House by a majority of 15, but was thrown out of the Upper House. This, he said, was to be regretted, as the Natives had promised to give 60,000 acres towards the Harbour. In reply to Mr. AV. K. McLean, Mr. Rees said it was true that Mr. Davies arranged with him (Mr. Rees) to build the breakwater for £50,000 worth of land, on the calculation that the said laiid would be improved in value, thereby, four times over; and not on the security of the endowment alluded to in Mr. McDonald's Bill. In reply to Mr. Ferris, Mr. Rees answered as follow: He could not say that the Company would sell land at an upset price, the same as the Government are doing, as that wc.uld be a matter for the Directors to decide. The Company would sell land on deferred payments. The Company would not give away land on any system such as the Homestead system, for settlement ; as itwonld have to pay for the land with its own money. It would not be against the interests of the Company for the Government to sell their lands at an eaaly date—the Company would like it. Mr. Ferris: Is it not probable, if the Government do sell their lands, that the Company will purchase them, so as to have a monopoly. Mr. Rees said that the idea had never struck him. He could not say. Mr. Rees, in reply to Mr. Ferris’ question as to how many of the Directors had paid cash for their shares, said it was a very impertinent question, and he was not called upon to answer it. The books would answer the question. .. Mr. Ferris said he would show it was not an impertinent question. Is it not a fact that the'law compels shareholders to pay cash, and that in the event of the Company becoming bankrupt, each Director would be liable for the amount of bis shares ? Mr. Rees said Mr. Ferris wanted cheap law, but he would not charge him a fee, and replied. “ No.” Mr. General Jackson said — Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen: I shall not make a speech ; neither shall I ask Mr Rees any questions ; but I would ask this meeting if it does not think some steps should be taken towards the formation of a Board of Enquiry in order to ascertain Mr. Rees’ fitness as an inmate for a lunatic asylumn ? This was not put to the meeting, but it appeared to be pretty generally assented to, and after a noisy discussion, the meeting broke up in disorder, after a vote of thanks to Mr. Rees and the Chairman.