The Evening Star. PUBLISHED DAILY AT FOUR P.M. Resurrexi. SATURDAY, AUGUST 26, 1882.

Thames Star, Volume XIII, Issue 4260, 26 August 1882, Page 2

The Evening Star. PUBLISHED DAILY AT FOUR P.M. Resurrexi. SATURDAY, AUGUST 26, 1882.

The General Government seems to be very arbitrary in its dealing with the local bodies. Two instances cropped up at the last meeting of the Borough Council. It Will be remembered that some eighteen months ago Mr Samuel Stephenson's hotel on the beach at the corner of Williamson street was burnt down. The occnpier was absent at. the time, and altbounh he had applied for the license, did not renew it. But the mortgagees, Messrs Byan, Bell and Co., of Auckland, availing themselves of the three days of grace, took out the license for their own protection. They decided not to rebuild. Mr Stephenson wished to erect a bouse in the main street, on another site, and applied to the Licensing Bench to bare the license promised for it. His application was refused; he was told that the license applied only to the site on which the former hotel had stood, and that bis proposed hotel on a fresh site must take its chance in the ordinary course, that a license could not be promised to a house unbuilt. Mr Stephenson has since tried to get the money from the Borough and the Government. He did not from the former body (that is, directly, for after all they had perforce to pay), but the Government took a favorable view of the matter, and without more ado deducted the amount from moneys pay* able by Government to the Council. The position is this: the Borough was not responsible for the license not having been exercised; and tie Borough contended that if even the money were returnable, Stephenson was not the person entitled to it, not having taken out the license. The Government however, take upon themselves to say that the money shall be paid, notwithstanding the protests of the Borough, and deducted the amount from subsidy payable to thfl Borough

The Under-Seeretary aaid the Government had satisfied themselves as to the justice of the claim, and had the impu dence to quote the following clause as the law under which the Government acted :—" Any expense incurred by Government, or any other money paid on behalf or at the request of any local governing body, shall be deducted from any subsidies or moneys accruing or pay * able to any such body." Now, two facts go to place the Government in an awkward position, morally^ viz.: The Borough was not called upon to state its case, so that the decision is ex parte, and the Borough certainly did not request the Government to pay the money to Stepbenson. The Council, resenting the injustice of the proceeding, asked the | Government to grant permission to sue, i or else refer the matter to the arbitration of the District Judge. There is not the slightest probability of the request being acceded to, but the Borough is power" less to help itself. Having paid the money, the Government is not likely to refund it, but will rather waste quires of foolscap with a view hiding the real issue. The Borough asserts its dignity by protesting that it has nothing to fear by courting inquiry. The other instance referred to is the dispute with Mr Spencer and others relative to certain water rights at Parawai. These gentlemen may be right, but oae thing is clear, the Parliamentary Committee did not give the Borough the chance of proving that they were wrong. The matter was adjudged upon the state ments of the petitioners alone, without the Borough being invited to say a word, and (it has been said) upon very brief and meagre inquiry too. Mr Spencer should not haloo until out of the wood. The fact that the Committee propose an alteration in the law should be proof that the Borough has the law on its side at present, therefore, Mr Spencer cannot have more than a moral right to the payment of expenses by the Borough. The most he could demonstrate in the Supreme Court is. that an Act of Parliament deprived him of certain rights, which should be restored; he could not recover against the Council for abiding by that law which deprived him of those rights. But the matter should not be. argued on such grounds. If his claim is a just one the Borough should give way at once, and restore those rights of which he was deprived by technicality. Let justice be done though the heavens should fall.