Poverty Bay Standard. Published Every Evening. GISBORNE SATURDAY, DECEMBER 2, 1882.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume X, Issue 1215, 2 December 1882, Page 2

Poverty Bay Standard. Published Every Evening. GISBORNE SATURDAY, DECEMBER 2, 1882.

It wan with considerable surprise that we learned by the proceedings in the Harbor Board meeting of the 28th ult. that when the Borough Council entered into the agreement with Messrs. Common, Shelton, and Co. in reference to the. purchase of certain property situate on the foreshore, now occupied by those gentlemen, the august body negotiating were in ignorance of the tenure by which Messrs. Common and Shelton occupied the property in question. The more so when wc take into consideration the numberless times we have heard this subject under discussion at the various meetings of the Borough Council which We have from time to time attended. We can hardly I’.<-li-eve it possible that ignorance of the real state of tenure can be alleged by an.', member of that very remarkable duality, the Borough Council and Harbor Board, respecting this agreement, when we consider past facts, which are, doubjlesa, on record on the books of the former body, and which, as a matter of business, copies of should have been furnished to the newly-created Harbor Board when the authority vested in the former body relating to the foreshore, and Harbor matters generally was transferred from the one to the other. The agreement between Messrs. Common, Shelton & Co., as signed by themselves and the Borough Council is one whereby Messrs. Common- and Shelton bind themselves to accept a certain lease of another portion of the foreshore with a term to be made up to 21 years ; and to pay to the Borough Council a yearly rental of £B5 ; to expend on iron buildings, plans of which arc to be subject to the Council’s approval, a sum of £l,OOO ; to keep such buildings insured in the joint names of vendor and vendee : while the Borough Council, on the other part, agree to pay to the vendors a sum of £B5O ; dividing costs of preparing lease. &c. ; i while the two negotiating bodies mutually agree that if the buildings shall be destroyed by fire, the sum for which they arc insured shall be expended in rebuilding them. The i agreement winds up with a clause which says, “ Should the Bill which is being pre- ! pared for Parliament vesting the property in the Council fail to become law, then this j agreement to be null and void." The date i of this agreement is the 14th of April, 1882, i and is duh’ and formally signed by the contracting parties. Let us turn back some four months, and transcribe here for the benefit of our readers a letter received by the Borough Council, a letter from the Marine Department to that body. dated WELLINGTON, 16th DECEMBER, 1881 : -

“Sir, —1 have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter No. s ‘ ( . of the 26th ult., and in reply I have been directed by the Minister having charge of this Department to state that the Government has not sanctioned, and docs not intend to sanction, any unlawful encroachment on the foreshore at Gisborne, and that Messrs. (\nnm:.m and Co. have no legal title Ig the foreshore on

which their wharf is erected., but that the wharf existed in some shape before the township of Gisborne was laid out, and they having purchased it from the assigns of the original owner, claim to have acquired the right to use it for the purpose of receiving and shipping their own goods, but not as a public wharf to the prejudice of the Corporation. “It is understood that Messrs, Common and Co. are anxious to come to some arrangement with the Corporation respecting their wharf, and no doubt the Council will recognise the desirability of meeting them in a spirit of fairness, with a view to an amicable settlement of this long-vexed question.—l have, etc., “(Signed) W. Sefd.” “The Town Clerk, Gisborne.’’ It will be thus ween that by Mr Seed's letter of the 16th December, 18S|, the Council w ere made fullg aware of the tenure by which Messrs Common and Sheltox were occupying this property. Y’ct the agreement with those gentlemen, which is in itself dated the 14th of April, 1882, is based upon the proceedings of a special meeting of the Borough Council held on the 14th o/' March, 1882, or three months afterdate of Mr Seed’s letter acquainting them with the state of title How in the face of these two documents the same individuals though acting in another capacity, can venture upon repudiation, we fail to gee. Wc do not fail to nee, however, a lawsuit in the future, in which the ratepayers will have to bear the penalty of the misdoings of their representatives. At a meeting of the Borough Council held on the 10th of October last, it was resolved “that this Council inform the Harbor Board of the agreement entered into between the Council and Messrs Common, Shelton & Co., and recommend the Harbor Board to carry out that agreement. The Harbor Board meet on the 17th October, and resolve “ that the Finance Committee conclude arrangements with Messrs Common, Shelton and Co. as soon as a reply is received from the Government." (This reply was in answer to a request to be furnished withjeertain tracings which have since been supplied.) Then comes the repudiation, made on the ground of the Harbor Board, as a separate body, not being bound to accept the action of the Borough Council; ■ and also, ignorance of the real state of title. Touching the former we conceive that the two bodies arc by no means distinct. There is one Borough Council, and one Harbor I Board : but they are one and the same. It ! is rather a curious anomaly, and when it is I remembered that a separate hoard was never created, but that the powers of the I Harbor Board were simply vested in the Borough Council much of the dual com- . plexity disappears. There can be no doubt that both morally and legally the Harbor Board must be bound by the contracts it has made in the Borough Council. At the meeting

of the held on November 28th, the Committee appointed to report upon Messrs. Common, Shelton, & Co.’s agreement handed in the following report:— “ That this Committee being placed in possession of further facts do not clearly perceive the specific interest they would obtain by undertaking to carry out any arrangement entered into between the Borough Council ami Messrs Common, Shelton and Co. They cannot, therefore, recommend the Board to undertake such arrangement. And this Committee further recommend that a statement of the whole facts of the case be forwarded to the Government for their information, drawing their attention to the fact that at the time the Borough Council entered into the agreement with Messrs Common, Shelton and Co. they were ignorant of the existence of the deed of conveyance from Mr G. E. Read to the Queen, dated 14th April, 1870, The Committee recognise the propriety of making a fair compensation to Messrs Common, Shelton and Co, for their buildings.”

After considerable discussion this report was adopted. Of course the final clause in the report is its saving clause, but we thoroughly object to the plea of ignorance as weak and untenable. If the Council, when they entered into the agreement with Messrs. Common and Sheleon were unaware of the existence of the deed from Read to the Queen, they had at any rate been made FULLY AWARE by Mr. Seed’s

letter of the 16th Dec.. 18SL (nearly a year ago!., that Common, Shelton, & Co. hud NG TITLE: Where then lies the difference? Would it make any differener who held the title so long as the < .i ..ctiiig vendor did not? What utter absu.dity ! The fact of the matter as it now stands is that the Borough Council have committed the ratepayers to a purchase, and they cannot repudiate without the most imminent danger. If Messrs. Common, Shelton, & ( <». will accept a conv promise it might bo well to make such an offer, but wc think it would hardly bo safe to dictate terms as final. Some days ago wc recommended counsel’s opinion being taken on this matter, and in the interests of ratepayers wc think such opinion vitally necessary, as a saving of money and a preservation <>f the ('ouiictl’s mercantile repute.

The Election for the Mayoralty is over, and our labours have been in vain. Mr E. K, wa= elected >«y :• majority of »ev‘>ntor!!. If »nH! thing could give i»s pleasure than another in the matter it was the kindly cordiality evinced by both candidates. We did our best for Mr Lewis and we should have very much liked to have seen him elected, hut we were defeated, and •ike Mr Lewis himself, we accept our defeat with a good grace, and congratulate Mr E. K. Brown upon his accession to civic honours, While on this matter we would suggest that the Mayor, of Gisborne should receive an honorarium of at least £2OO, in order to enable him to support the civic honour without having to bear the whole expense himself. It would be comparatively little out of the ratepayers pockets, while wc should, at any rate, be conscious that we were following, on a minor scale, the rules observed in towns of less pretentions than our own with regard co the honorarium accorded to the Chief Magistrate by virtue of his office. A man cannot hold that office without going to expense, and it is certainly unfair that such expense should be borne by himself. in the event of visitors of note coming to Gisborne, the expense of entertaining them devolves naturally on the Mayor; and without a doubt every charitable subscription list should bear the Mayor's imprint visibly. To do all this at his own expense would be too much to ask of one individual. and hence we recommend to the notice of our readers our suggestion of offering some such trifling emolument as £2OO per annum, in order to enable our Mayor to do these things gracefully, without trespassing too heavily upon his own funds. We do not wish to force the matter, but we would ask ratepayers to carefully consider and weigh it, and we have very little doubt that they will eventually come to the same view as ourselves.