Untitled

Thames Star, Volume VII, Issue 2631, 14 June 1877, Page 2

Setting aside for the nonce the question whether the foreshore will be handed over to the Harbor Board—which is doubtful, as a distinct promise was once before given by a Minister of the Crown that the foreshore would be given as an endowment to the Borough—the Hon. Mr Whitaker was understood to say to the deputation from the Harbor Board yesterday that in handing over the foreshore the " rights" of the battery proprietors who have built on the foreshore would have to be respected. We should very much like to know what those rights are, and how acquired. It is true that several companies have erected valuable plants for crushing quartz on portions of the foreshore, but who shall say that they as " squatters " have acquired any rights thereto? What rights have they to such areas, and what is their tenure P Are. they to bo rights in perpetuity or as lessees of the Crown? And if Iho Harbor Board should some day be put in

possession of the foreshore, is that body to guarantee the freeholds of these battery sites or be compelled to recognise these bastard " rights " to the extent of giving long louses at nominal rents, with prospective liabilities in the shape of Value for improvements ? These are questions which concern every one who has any stake iv the district and is yearly contributing to make these properties valuable. All that the public seem to know of the rights of battery owners on the foreshore is that during the superintendence of Mr T. B. Gillies certain areas —not exceeding half an acre each, we believo—were permitted to be occupied as battery sites, on the understanding that a rental of £50 per annum should be paid by each company occupying a site. The purchase of the foreshore was incomplete at the time, and there was no governing body competent to make a valid agreement, the foreshore not coming under the goldfields administration. Under these elastic conditions several areas were taken up—not confined to half acres, but occupying a much larger extent of ground. What rights can have been acquired under such loose arrangements we leave to the legal fraternity to define. What we think would be fair and equitable is this: That, as soon as the Harbor Board is put in possession of the foreshore, the Board should be in a position to make demand for back rent accruing from the occupation of these battery sites at the rate of £50 per annum for each half acre so occupied, with power to grant leases for a reasonable period on the same terms. Anything less than this we conceive would be an injustice to the public, and for the Government to deal with the portions of the foreshore occupied would, be hampering the Harbor Board with conditions that would make the endowment practically useless. There have been many applications for foreshore allotments since these so-called, rights were acquired, but there has been no governing body in a position to grant them, and if the claims of individuals or companies on the public endowments are to be admitted, to the detriment of the public, all confidence in the professions of the Government to assist local governing bodies will be destroyed.