NEW ZEALAND AGRICULTURAL COMPANY,

Te Aroha News, Volume III, Issue 119, 12 September 1885, Page 4

NEW ZEALAND AGRICULTURAL COMPANY,

I advised you a few days ago that the Treasurer, who is understood to be largely interested in the New Zealand Agricultural Company, was stronglyopposed totheWaimea Plains Company's petition to be allowed to levy a rate on a lesser valuation than had been fixed. From a discussion in the House this afternoon, it will be seen that Sir Julius Vogrel's position is shared in by his colleagues. Shortly after the meeting of the House, the Public Accounts Committee presented the following report :—" That the patition be referred to the Government, with a recommendation that they promote the necessary legislation this session to enable the Waimea Plains Railway Company (Limited) to recover rates on the basin of the cost of the railway having been £95,000." Mr Downie Stewart wished to move, " And that Government give effect this session to the report of the Committee." Mr Cowan said the report was founded on a petition dated July 13, and presented to the House this week. It appeared to him that unnecessary haste had been shown in making this report, and that) the ratepayers had improperly been denied the opportunity of being heard. The recommendation of the Committee was of a retrospeotive effect, inasmuch as it gives the Company power to collect a rate, the collection of which the Supreme Court had decided could not be made. He moved that the report be referred back to the Committee for further consideration. Mr Montgomery said that as one who had taken a stand against retrospective legislation, he thought no injustice could be done the ratepayers by remedying the defeot which existed. Major Atkinson hoped the report would be adopted, inasmuch as the Company were absolutely precluded from recovering a rate owing to a pure technicality. As to the basis on which the rate was struck, as a member of the Public Accounts Committee he said that till the possible evidence that could be got bearing on the facts of the case had been received. The Minister for Lands contended that the House were asked to adopt something in the form of retrospective legislation. The Committee had noted hastily, and without

due consideration. He would go a step further, and say that the matter had been pushed through the Committee with unnecessary haste. He asked that the evidence of the ratepayers might be taken, as the whole thing seemed to be involved in something like a cloud of suspicion. Mr Rew aocused the ratepayers interested of trying to shirk their honest responsibility through a technicality of a Crown Law Officer in assessing the amount to be rated at £108,000, instead of £101,000. Messrs Peacock, Rolleston, Fergus and others supported the Committee's report, while Mr Duncan opposed it. Mr Hatch accused the hon. members who were interested in the line of endeavouring to levy a rate whioh ought not to be levied. Mr Fergus answered the member for Invercargill with Borne warmth. He said that certain members of the Liberal party who opposed the Committee's report wished to relieve two or three large landed proprietors. The New Zealand Agricultural Company on ed the greatest portion of the rate, and would have to pay three-fourths of the entire rate. The House should not be led away to relieving such monopolists, and he trusted that members would not yield to the importunities of a few interested parties. The Premier said that his firm haring been solicitors to the Waimea Plains Railway Company, he should abstain from voting or speaking on this question as he bad done in the case of the Dunedin Drillshed Reserve. The hon. member then proceeded to speak of retrospective legislation, and concluded by urging that action be deferred till the ratepayers could be heard. Mr Pyke very properly rapped the Premibr over the knuckles for refusing to vote because of his former connection with the Waimea Plains Company, and then proceeding to advocate the cause of the ratepayers. In his opinion the advoctcy was of greater moment than a vote. ( Blear. ) Mr Barron referred to the influences at work which prevented the Waimea Company from obtaining substantial justice. The New Zealand Agricultural Company were very strongly represented in the House. He was not sure that they were not so strongly represented that its numerical force could not outweigh the balance of members. The Premier had told the House his firm had no further connection with the Waimea Plains Railway Company, but he had not said as much with respect to the New Zealand Agricultural Company. The Premier said if the hon. member requested, it he would state the whole history of his firm's connection with both Companies, but was sorry to see that the discussion could not be continued with out j imputing motives. The debate was continued at some length, some speakers urging that consideration of the report should bedeferred pending receipt I of a report from the Public Petitions Comj mittee, to whom had been referred the petition from the ratepayers. Sir George Grey thought this was a case in which the honour of the House was to some extent implicated. The real moving power, he believed, in this question was the New Zealand Agricultural Company's shareholders, which had nearly been ruined in England, The speaker proceeded to explain the position of Sir Julius Vogel (then Agent General)and Mr Larnach (Loan Agent) in connection with the founding of the Company. The conclusion he came to was j that these hon. gentlemen almost forgot the sanctity of their office to promote theiv private ends. Those who established this Company received largo sums of money to share among them as promoters. Four gentlemen in the Ministry were deeply con cerned in that Company. The speaker proceeded to speak of the legislation connected with the Company, which had since occurred, and pointed out that upwards of £3,000 odd of the present rate would have to be paid bv the New Zealand Agricultural Company. He accused Ministers that afternoon of using their influence to prevent the Waimea Plains Company petting their just legal redress. Was it right that such influences should, session after session, be brought to bear to frustrate necessary relief being granted? This House was bound, if it could, to afford some monetary relief to the shareholders in the New Zealand Agricultural Company who had been betrayed into investing in a concern of which officers of the New Zealand Government were promoters. The motion that report be laid on the table, and referred to the Government for consideration, was carried on the voices, as was the amendment proposed by Mr Stewart.