THE Thames Advertiser. THURSDAY, AUG. 6, 1874.

Thames Advertiser, Volume VII, Issue 1884, 6 August 1874, Page 2

THE Thames Advertiser. THURSDAY, AUG. 6, 1874.

—■ The statements made in the letter of our Whakatiwai correspondent, published in yesterday's issue, respecting Mr James Mackay and his land purchase transactions, may be regarded, we think, as tolerably correct, and the information was probably given to our correspondent with a view of explaining away some of the assertions recently made about the vicious policy of the Land Purchase Department in these columns. But in whatever light Mr Mackay himself may look upon the policy adopted with regard to the acquirement of native lauds, the public have come to the conclusion that it is not a sound or proper one, and the " explanations" given at his request, really show that the evils we have so long complained of do exist. It is admitted by Mr Mackay that he does pay for native land in stores, and thai he frequently pays the storekeeper bj his own bills,. but he denies having asked for his acceptances to be re newed. We shall, however, haye occasion to refer again to this question and we believe we shall be in a position to convince Mr ' Mackay'' that his memory is at fault in the matter.' In the meantime he might, perhaps, wit! great advantage to the public, give a few explanations regarding the Hung£ Hunga block, and about the Waitoh purchase. Is the Hunga Hunga lane being purchased for a private indivi dual, or on behalf of the Government? On more than one occasion we havi drawn attention to the enormous profit: made by our local Insurance Com panies, and we recently expressed s hope that the establishment of a fourtl local company would lead, to ( greate competition j and consequently to speedy and heavy reduction in fire pi'( miums. The public will pp.rhaps no be very much surprised to hear that slight reduction ia the rates did tal

)lace for a time at the Thames, wheu ,he last new company ' commenced iperations; but as soon as it was slearly proved that the new institution tos likely to take root and grow into i powerful rival, the older companies it once gave up the competition and jffered "terms." The preliminaries were arranged, we believe, at a meeting in Auckland of all the insurance agents doing business at the Thames, and the result is now before us in the shape of a printed table showing the " minimum fire insurance rates for the goldfields, province of Auckland." As this table is to apply to all " new policies and all renewals," it is well that the people of the Thames shonld understand the position in which they will shortly be placed, on the expiration of their present policies. In the first place brick buildings are to be charged 25 per cent, advance on Auckland rates, but for what reason we are at a loss to conceive. There have been no great conflagrations at the Thames through incendiarism, and on the whole the risks are better than those of a similar character in Auckland, for the simple reason' that we possess a water supply and can stop a fire in its early stages. A large block hjjs been marked off on the map, embracing the whole of Grahamstown, from the Moanatairi Creek, along Pollen-street Section 134, and along the beach to Cochrane-street, and no risk is to be taken within those boundaries under the rate of 8 per cent, per annum, and at the expiration of all existing policies below that rate they are to be discontinued. Another block is to be charged 7 per cent,, and it fronts Grey and Pollen streets, running to Willoughbystreet, Shortland. Within these boundaries at the present time there are many insurances ranging from 3 to 6 per cent., but the recent increase in the rates of premium will almost stop fire insurance business at the Thames. Those who made and arranged the rates and fixed the boundaries above described, could have known very little either about insurance business, or the class of buildings at the Thames, because the tariff is in many respects manifestly absurd. Some of. the risks, within these boundaries are, we admit, hazardous and worth probably 10 per cent., whilst many again are. not worse than risks,taken elsewhere at 2 and' 3 per cent. But by a happy , thought on the part of some insurance agent, a few strokes of the pen, and a 1 red-pencil mark on the map, the danger and difficulty of a fair competition was overcome, and a uniform tariff of 7 i and 8 per cent, was fixed. It is possible, however, that the Insurance - Companies may have over-reached themselves.in this matter, because the change can only result in one of two things: either an almost entire cessation of insurance business at the Thames, or else the starting of a local insurance company. It may be thought that this agree--1 ment will be broken through, but we ; understand that a sum of £10 has been deposited by each Company in.Auck--5 land, which is to be forfeited by any ■ delinquent when discovered. The f agreement runs thus:— ""We .the undersigned doing business at the Thames, agree on behalf of our respective companies to adopt and maintain B the within tariff of rates, and to instruct our agents there to that effect. 1 ' This 1 pretty little document is nothing more - than a disgraceful combination to raise the fire premiums to an exorbitant it rate, and is signed by the Auckland representatives of the New Zealand, [e Pioyal, South British, National, Victoria, Norwich Union, Scottish Commercial, Northern, and Standard = Companies. What is required is a little combination on the part of the y- business portion of this community to a S endeavaur to induce some of the other 1' foreign companies who are not within = the "ring," to commence business at the Thames.