THE LAND FUND QUESTION

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LI, Issue 167, 6 July 1908, Page 2

THE LAND FUND QUESTION

We have Ihm-j! taki-11 io task by our contemporary over tlris purtiiuiiir matter, i.e.., the' Land Fund. Wo maintained that, the Fund was not ear-marked fur the payment of interest particularly on the loan now in exisi-em-o. We claimed tliat tin* Land Fund might bo allocated to tlx* payment of intereM on any other loan raised by the Board ur might be spread over anv number of loans that the Hoard might raise. To that conviction we hold more I strongly than ever, even though our contemporary considers the theory "too utterly far-fetched to be worthy of any consideration." The Herald says that "the .Board cannot vary Iho selling apart alter it has once been determined, and that the land revenue ha* already been sot apart to pay interest on the loan jioxr in existence.'' We say lhat it is within the ability of the Board to use the Land Fund for payment of interest on the present loan or twenty loans, and that the Hoard is not compelled to use the money for payment of interest in respect to the existing loan won; there another loan in existence. If tin l Land Fund were ear-marked specifically for the payment of interest and sinking fund on the present loan, what would be the result? Clearly that when the loan was paid off, as it has to be next year, the Land Fund would automatically cease, unless re-enacted, and not be available in connection with the Bill now before Parliament. Clause 1!) of the New Plymouth Jlarbor Board Ordinance 187.3 Amendment Act. 1877, provides that the Land Fund ''shall be set aside by the Board for the payment of interest and sinking fund on any loan obtained by the Board and for no other purpose.'' It is easy to see how the significance of this clause has been overlooked. Up to the present there has been only one loan, and the Land Fund has necessarily been used for the payment of iuter'vt oil that loan. Had the words "under the authority of this Act*' (as in a prior clause dealing with the rate) I wen added, the Land Fund could only be applied to tiic pre>ei]( Joan, oven if a second loan were raised. *1 he Herald and our obstinate Inglewood contemporary in that case would have been correct in their hypothesis. The repayment of the loan under any process except by re-borrowing the . balance of CI'm.OOO, under the authority of the present Act, would Tit is equally correct, have terminated the. endowment. This position shows clearly how untenable are the arguments of the Herald, which repudiates "on behalf of New Plymouth any thought of taking so dishonorable and dishonest an ad-

vantage of a Haw in the wording of the Act, even if such a law were proved to exist." We are satisfied that the wording »f the Act was intentional, and not accidental, and Hint there is 110 Haw. The omission of Hie words "under (lie authority of tin's Act" from the clause Sll ([(icsiion, while being used in the clause rela ting to the rate, shows (dearly the intention of the Legislature that this endowment was intended to lie used at the will of the Board for I lie payment of interest on am' loan or loans it might raise. It follows that tile linanl being at liberty to utilise the Land Fund, could do so in nart or whole, according a> it considered the resources of any particular loan warranted its allocation, whether that loan was the lirst, second, or anv other. Therefore

we contend that in the now unlikely event of the present Bill bring defeated by Parliament or the ratepayers at the poll, and tin* Hoard deciding to raise another loan over a smaller area.. Ihciv would lie nothing to prevent the Hoard using the Land Fund for the payment of interest on No. 2 loan, partly or wholly. Of eonr.se we know that in ordinary circumstances the Board would not divert the whole of the fund from the payment of interest on ilie present loan ! to the payment of interest on the second. and that the probabilities are tliat. the fnnd would be divided between the two. but if is quite possible that circumstances might arise in the future which would justify the Board devoting the whole of the fund in the payment of interest on the second loan, in which case there would be nothing "dishonest or dishonorable" in taking advantage <>f its elenrly expressed powers under t lie Act.