38

H.—loa

member of the Trust Board entertaining the view you did, that the Government did in fact require the whole—that you could not successfully resist the Government even though they did not require the whole area? —I did not know any way of resisting the Government. If there had been any way open I certainly should have been for taking it. 875. In answer to Mr. Hesketh, you said that you were rather warm upon the subject, and that your co-trustees thought you rather warm, and that you talked of the Supreme Court. If you had been aware of what I have mentioned you would probably have suggested some action ?-- I think so. Not, mark you, so much to prevent Mr. Kissling from getting the land as to prevent the Government from getting it for what I considered an unnecessary purpose. Ido not pretend to be an artilleryman or an engineer; but I believe, and hundreds of other people also believe, that such a fortification is unnecessary, because if an enemy ever gets so close as thatrthen good-bye to your town. 876. But I am now particularly referring to the portion which was really found to be unnecessary—to the 3-i- acres that was reconveyed ?—Oh, yes ! 877. I understand you to say that, if you had known that under the Public Works Act of 1882 the Government could not take that which they did not require, you would have proposed some measures of resistance?—l should. 878. I presume you were aware of the arrangement entered into between Mr. Brewer and Mr. Kissling generally ?—I cannot say that I was. 879. I will read it to you. This was the arrangement entered into on the 20th November, 1885, between Mr. Brewer and Mr. Kissling —that was the day before the letter was sent by Mr. Brewer to the Trust Board, telling them that the Government were going to take the whole o the land for defence purposes : " Auckland, 20th November, 1885. —H. M. Brewer, Esq.—Bea Sir, —Eeferring to our conversation this morning, I would beg to state what I understand to be tb position of our negotiations with regard to Point Eesolution. The Government have taken tls whole of my property, for which they are to pay £6,000 —for freehold and leasehold interest, 'f this sum lam to receive £5,368 ; the Trustees receive £632. The Government undertake to had me back, as a freehold, the portion of my property not required by them, about 3-J- acres, for wh;h I pay them £4,250. The total cost of compensation to the Government will therefore be £1,70. Should it be found in settling with the Trustees that the Government have to pay a larger am than £632 for their freehold interest, I undertake to reimburse them the excess. It is understod that the boundary between my property and the fort is the fence erected by the Go\rnm ent.—Yours faithfully, G. S. Kissling." Do you say that when that letter was recived from Mr. Brewer, and until the Special Powers and Contracts Act was passed, you Sew nothing of that arrangement ? —No: it is not referred to in Mr. Brewer's letter. As a buoess man I should probably have said in such a letter, " I beg herewith to enclose a proposal'rom Mr. Kissling for the purchase of the property in excess of our requirements, and request tomow whether the terms are agreeable to you." The paragraph which says that, if the .Trustees te not satisfied with the offer, Mr. Kissling shall make up the difference, perhaps explains easily 'hy it was considered best not to send the letter to the Trustees. 880. That does not explain why Mr. Brewer did not send it to the Trustees, because the bvernment were not to pay any more. What is your opinion about that concealment ?—I can?t look into Mr. Brewer's mind. 881. Do you think that it was a proper transaction, or a proper way of treating the lard ?— I dare say that Mr. Brewer is a very excellent Government servant, and that he did not ant the Government to have to pay any more than they had agreed to offer. 882. But do you not see it did not affect the Government ? Mr. Kissling had to pay a/ excess. Yet Mr. Brewer writes to the Trustees telling them that the Government were going trtake the whole of the land —not for the purpose of giving a portion back to Mrs. Kissling, it for the purposes of the battery. That letter was written simultaneously with the making of ti arrangement with Mr. Kissling. Do you think that proper ?—I think it hardly fair and aboveb-rd. 883. I want to read to you—no doubt you have read it before, because you sa you were astonished when you saw the statute —a statement made in the Special Powers and (Detracts Act with respect to this. It says, " The land described in the second column, having, int alia, been taken by Government for defence works at Point Eesolution, Auckland, by Proclamat^ published in the New Zealand Gazette, No. 32, of 1886, and being in excess of the area now'equired for defence purposes, it is desirable to sell it to Frances Catherine Kissling, wife of Gege Schwartz Kissling, of Auckland. The amount to be received for this portion of the land whicfas taken by Proclamation to go in reduction of the amount which would otherwise be payable to Is- Kissling." Taken in the light of the information now before you, is that a true statement ?—No;ertainly not. Who signs that ? Mr. Napier : It is in an Act of the Legislature, signed by the Governor. 884. Dr. Giles.] I should like to know which portion you say is not true ?The statement that the portion of land referred to is not now required for defence purposes. As letter of fact, it never was required. 885. There is one other question I would like to ask you. There was a prosal made before Mr. Brewer had anything to do with the matter. The Government had been r°minended by a preceding agent, Mr. Mackay, to take the whole of this land, not with any vievf reconyeying_ a portion to Mr. Kissling or to anybody else, but in order to avoid some complicPns °r difficulties which Mr. Mackay thoughtJie saw in the way; and his suggestion was, that dJ might take the whole of the land, and any portion they did not require for defence purposeiney might lease. What would you have said to such an arrangement as that if it had been put be'e you?—That the Government might lease any portion they did not require ? 886. That they should take the whole, and if they did not want the wtf tney should lease any surplus ?—That would have been an illegal act, I learn now. If all the ld which is taken is not required, the surplus has to be offered back to the parties from whom it t been taken.