l.—tA.

T. W. HISLOP.j

35

" Woodward Street. "Sip,—l xvas addressed to-day by an intelligent citizen somewhat as follows: 'You gave Macdonald a soft thing.' I said, ' What do you mean? ' ' Why, you gave him 6 perches of land for half a perch.' I said, ' Bui who paid for the 6 perches? ' He said, ' The Council paid for it.' 1 replied, 'But who paid the Council?' He: 'No one, of course. He got the land for which you paid £652 for half a perch.' I asked him where he got this notion from. He replied, 'The Dominion.' I find on looking up your article that it is open to the interpretation put on it, I told the citizen that Mr. Macdonald had paid the £652, and he seemed astonished, and he assured me that he had spoken to six or seven people, xvho were under the same impression as he was. I explained to him where the land was, and he agreed that the price paid for it xvas a large one. I showed him what was known to the committee during its negotiations—namely, how difficult it was to utilise the land because of its very limited area, and the expensive foundations which xvould require to go doxvn about 20 ft. on two sides if a building were erected upon it. You suggest an enormous probable profit on the transaction, based on the assumption that £8,000 could be procured for the xvhole of the two areas, and the further assumption that the area bought was equal in proportionate value to the Woodward Street area. The area bought is in Wellington Terrace, whereas the bulk, of the land is in Woodward Street, and the value of the frontage to Woodward Street exceeds that the Terrace by at least three times. " Perhaps xvhile I am writing you xvill allow me to state the matter shortly. " (1.) The Council was trying for over a year to get the owners of the section in Woodward Street to agree to something reasonable, so as to carry out the great improvement which has now been effected, but nothing could, be done. "(2.) After Mr. Macdonald agreed to buy the freehold, he having had previously a longlease to run, xve continued our negotiations. He xvas vvvy anxious that his area, which was small, should not be materially diminished. "(3.) Like Mr. Fisher, who assured the Council that he had seen the plan sent to the Land Office, and that it was shown thereon that 4 perches were required, Mr. Macdonald misread ' '4 perches ' for ' 4 perches.' " (4.) I do not consider that the question is really affected by the mistake made in reading the plan, but, so far as the Council and I are concerned, we tried to make it clear by furnishing the plan showing the area and measurements, xvhich I believe were given in feet, and this xvas the plan sent on to the Lands Department. " (5.) A valuation xvas made in the usual way by the Government Valuation Department, and I feel certain that the price assessed xx*ould not have been paid by any one except the owner of the Woodward Street section." [No clause 6 in cutting.] "(7.) The piece of land is axvkwardly shaped and on a higher elevation than the land on two sides, and is one upon xxhich the laxv and the by-laws xvould have prevented a dxx'ellinghouse being erected xvhich xvould be commensurate with the price given, and xvhich could scarcely have been utilised for anything else. Yet the price xvas at the rate of £16,000 per acre. The Corporation received a parcel of land which, according to the value of land in Woodxvard Street, and irrespective of its being at the corner, was xvorth, in my judgment, £180, and according to Mr. Fisher's estimate a great deal more. This £180 added to the purchase makes it £830. Before the owner can utilise it he must take out 20 ft. in depth of excavation at least. "(8.) In my three years' connection xvith the Council I have only known of txvo instances— and this is one—xxhere the owner has co-operated xvith the Council in erecting a retaining-wall which was required for street purposes. On the estimates submitted by the' Engineer xx-e saved about £70 by the arrangement, besides having the xvhole of our land in Woodward Street left free for use, instead of having the wall on it. " (9.) The whole of the circumstances were known to the members of the Finance Committee xvhen the arrangement was entered into, and I feel certain that if it had to be done again the same agreement would be made. No member except Mr. Fisher has, either in Committee or Council, expressed himself otherwise than favourably xvith regard to it. "(10.) The Government got a fair price for their laud, and they helped along an arrangement for the benefit of the city. The Government knexv from my letter of September sth that the parcel of land xvas going at the price to Mr. Macdonald, and that the price xvas no concern of the Council's. "(11.) Mr. Macdonald paid xvell for xvhat he got, and it yet remains to be seen whether he xvill make a profit or if he wouldn't have been better off to-day if he had done xxhat per cent, of people do—sat still and got what he could out of the Corporation, leaving it to chance to see whether he could get the Government's parcel afterwards at a fair price. " I am, <fee, "August 2nd." " T. W. Htslop. Witness: The xx-hole is absolutely correct except, perhaps, that clause 9 might require a slight explanation—xvhere T say "the xx-hole of the circumstances were known to the members of the Finance Committee xvhen the arrangement xvas entered into." What I mean is, the circumstances so far as they affected the Council or xvere known to me. 10. Mr. Fisher.] You are satisfied that that statement is correct?—l think it is, subject to xvhat I have said. 11. At the beginning of the letter you will notice, on meeting xvith a citizen, that the citizen, in speaking of the land, said, "The Council paid for it," and the Mayor said, "But who paid the Council? " —was the Council ever paid?— Yes.