THE Wairarapa Age MORNING DAILY. MONDAY, MAY 20, 1907. THE COURTHOUSE SITE QUESTION.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXX, Issue 8446, 20 May 1907, Page 4

THE Wairarapa Age MORNING DAILY. MONDAY, MAY 20, 1907. THE COURTHOUSE SITE QUESTION.

WHAT DOES THE ACT MEAN? At the annual meeting of the Masterton Trust Lands Trust voters, held on Thursday evening last, Mr A. W. Hogg, M.H.R., moved, "That jt be an instruction from those attending the meeting that the incoming Trustees endeavour to arrange terms with the Government for an exchange of sites for a v new Courthouse for Masterton." Mr Hogg then proceeded to refer to the Masterton Trustees Empowering Act, 1902, and remarked that "the Trustees were fully empowered to bring a'bout the exj change." The member for the district wound up by accusing the Trustees of "hanging-up" the matter. We are surprised at the wording of Mr Hogg's motion, and we are still more surprised that he blamed the Trustees of the * Masterton Trust Lands Trust for refusing to pay any money by way of equality of exchange. Mr Hogg assisted in the passing of the Act, and we believe that he was thanked by the Trustees for his valuable assistance. It is not expecting too much to expect that he should be acquainted with all the circumstances of the case, and with the intention of the Legislature, when it agreed to give effect to the request of the Trustees. The Trustees, in our opinion, have no power whatever to make any payment to the Government in connection with the exchange of sites, and no payment on either side was contemplated when the Act was passed.

"The Masterton Trustees Empowering Act, 1902," was passed by Parliament in order to effect an exchange, pure and simple, between the Crown and the Trustees. It is stated in the Act that it is one "to enable the Trustees of the Masterton Trust Lands Trust to exchange certain Lands with the Crown, and to vest certain Lands in His Majesty and King." The preamble of the Act, from which the intention of Parliament may be gathered, states: I "Whereas the lands described in the First Schedule hereto are vested in j the Crown for public buildings, and IT IS EXPEDIENT THAT THE SAID LANDS SHOULD BE EXCHANGED for the lands described in the Second Schedule hereto and now vested in the Trustees of the Masterton Trust Lands Trust: And whereas it is further expedient that the lands described in the Third and Fourth Schedules hereto and vested in the said Trustees pursuant to the provisions of "The Masterton Trust Lands Act, 1889," should be conveyed or transferred to the Crown for the purposes hereinafter mentioned." The "lands" mentioned in the Third and Fourth Schedules, which the Trustees may convey to the Crown, need not be discussed. There is only one condition in the Act attaching to the exchange, and that condition is that the consent of the voters on the roll of the Masterton Trust Lands Trust must be obtained to the proposals. The necessary poll has, of course, been carried since the Act was passed. It was certainly an equal exchange, which the voters, in good faith that the Crown would abide by its compact, voted for, and the Trustees of the Masterton Trust Lands Trust cannot go legally beyond the power given to them by the voters, and». as a matter of common justice, that poll cannot be ignored. Sub-section (1) of Clause 2 states that the Trustees

may "Convey or transfer to the Crown the lands described in the Second Schedule hereto, in exchange for the land specified in the First Schedule." The "lands" in the Second Schedule consist of the site on of Chapel and Hall Streets, and the "lands" in the First Schedule consist of the Crown's to the Post Office, in Queen Street. There is no provision anywhere, and we feel sure that it was never contemplated by Parliament that a single penny-piece should be paid by the Trustees to the Crown in connection with the exchange. And apart, altogether, from what has been enacted by Parliament, why should the Crown not be willing to make the exchange? It is admitted that the section on the corner of Chapel and Hall Streets is more useful and desirable, for the purposes of a Courthouse, than, the Crown's

section ii Queen Street, consequently it pays the Crown to make the exchange. The Crown is not a land speculator, and the Trustees have no power either to sell or to purchase land. The exchange provided for in the Act is one that suits each of the parties, and this was recognised on both sides and was the spirit of the "deal" when the Act was passed. The Trustees, at the time, did not contemplate making any payment, and the Crown certainly did not expect them to do so, for if it had, it may reasonably be held that Parliament would have made provision in the Act for a valuation of the sections, and have empowered the Trustees to pay the difference in value of the two sections. It was never suggested that the Trustees should make any payment until the Minister for Justice did so, and, in our humble opinion, his suggestion is an entirely wrong cne. For some reason it seems to us that the Minister for Justice is deliberately thwarting the wishes of the Masterton people in connection with the matter of a new Courthouse. It is the duty of a Minister to see that the law is carried out, and not to administer the law according to his own sweet will. Mr Hogg has tried to get a new Courthouse for Masterton, and, possibly, he has tried hard; but the fact of his having failed to do so up to the present is no justification for his adversely criticising the Trustees of the Masterton Trust Lands Trust for not committing an illegal action, and one which might rob the people of the benefit of the exhange which, we submit, Parliament has agreed to, and which the voters on the Trust Lands roll confirmed in all good faith that the Minister for Justice would give effect to the decision of Parliament.

THE MASTERTON FISH PONDS. The illuminating statement made by the Honorary Secretary of the Masterton Sub-Committee of the Wellington Acclimatization Society to a Wairarapa Age representative, and published in our issue of Saturday last, certainly suggests that there is some reason to doubt the wisdom of the proposal that the Society should establish fish ponds at the Hutt. It would be a matter for regret, from a local point of view, if Masterton were to lose the fish ponds altogether, but the Society cannot be expected to consider this point. The crux of the question is what practical scheme should the Society adopt, that is in the best interests of anglers i

generally throughout the Province? The proposal to abolish the fish ponds at Masterton, and to establish ponds at the Hutt does not seem to meet the case. We understand that the principal object that the Society J had in view when establishing the Masterton Fish Ponds has been ac- j complished. That object was the' stocking of the whole of the North Island, and since the Sub-Committee have been so successful in the work of acclimatization it may naturally be asked why should the Masterton ponds be "knocked on the head" altogether? Is the whole affair simply another instance of the wretched town versus country cry. It has been suggested to us that the best course the Society could pursue would be to purchase all the ova required from the Government, and to use the Masterton Ponds simply for hatching purposes. This plan, it is contended, would prove the most satisfactory to all concerned throughout the Province, and would be a more economical system of working than that which has been in vogue for some years past. We are informed that clear spring water without sediment is an absolute essential to successful hatching, and that such a supply is available at the Masterton Ponds. Moreover, in view of fry being very fragile it should be taken into consideration that Masterton is centrally situated for despatching fry to other parts of the Province. For years past Hawke's Bay, Palmerston North, Wanganui and Marton, have been supplied from Masterton. A good deal of money during recent years has been expended at the ponds, and will be entirely lost to the Society if the ponds are abandoned. All things considered' it certainly seems that it would be most inadvisable to establish ponds at the Hutt in place of those existing locally.