THE LAND SCRIP CASE.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2390, 2 August 1892, Page 4

THE LAND SCRIP CASE.

In the House of Representatives on Thursday Mr Meredith asked the Minister of Lands : " (1) If an hon. member of this House, as agent for another person, has exercised forest land scrip to a large amount in lieu of cash. (2) Was the scrip so used a legal tinder where exercised. (3) Upon whose authority did the Receiver of Land Revenue receive the said scrip in payment for land. (4) What steps, if any, does the Government intend to take in the matter." Mr McKenzie replied : A. B. G. Rhodes, on behalf of Mrs Jessie Rhodes, exercised forest scrip to the amount of £998 14s in buying 3990 acres of land for £2238 15s ; (2) the scrip was a legal tender to the amount of £SOO only; (3) no special authority was given to the receiver to accept this for cash (he apparently relied on instructions given at the time the Lake Ellesmere lands were sold); (4) the Auditor and Controller-General has surcharged the receiver, and proposes to iustruct a solicitor to issue a writ forthwith. Mr Meredith, moving the adjournment of the House, resented an attack which the leader of the Opposition had made upon him when this question was previously raised. When he (Mr Meredith) was a member of the Canterbury Land Board it came to his knowledge that a considerable quantity of forest land scrip had been exercised in payment for certain Crown land. He found that the scrip was only valuable as a legal tender to the year 1890. The member for Geraldine, Mr Rhodes, as agent for Mrs Rhodes, had exercised scrip in the purchase of a block of land in the Timaru district about March, 1891, payiug for it in scrip to the value of £993 14s. He was prepared to exonerate him from all blame and to exonerate the Receiver of Land Revenve from all blame, still the scrip was illegally used, and the public account had been defrauded. He believed that there were other instances of the illegal use of land scrip in Canterbury. Mr Rhodes did not wish to waste another afternoon, but he wanted to correct a statement that the funds of the colony had been defrauded. There had been no fraud upon the public funds, the scrip was good in Auckland at the time, and it had not been shown that it was not good in Canterbury. The scrip bore on the face of it that it was perfectly good all over the colony, and the question of as to whether tt was good outside of Auckland had not been decided in the Court of Appeal. Mr Rolleston said that what he had found fault with in Mr Meredith's action was that notice of his question on this subject had been given four or live days ahead on the Order Paper, and that thus this transaction had been confounded with other transactions elsewhere, which had been the subject of grave criticism, and had been dealt with in the law Courts. Mr Meredith had acted in a manner highly improper. There had been no fraud whatever upon the public revenue in this matter.