Sessional_Paper_1905 — Page 703

625

-

of the Crown says that [referring to Mr. Danby's Report] it is worth $3, and he bases his calculation on this basis that it is worth $3 per square foot and not $2 per square foot. At the same tine, Mr. Danby had to consider the fact that the sum of $15,000 had already been paid, and he also had to consider the fact that $18,000 had been voted, making a sum of over $33,000. That sum corresponds almost exactly with the sum of $1 per square foot which is due to us. In their calculation nothing is laid down for depreciation during the years we were interfered with, and now Mr. Danby says, as you will see in paragraph 7, that we did not suffer any loss at all, and this interference, in fact, was rather a benefit to us.

Now, we want to call your Excellency's attention that, here, the Crown had entirely neglected the basis on which their calculation was made. In 1900 the only reason they had for offering that $15,000 was because we had suffered a loss during the continuance of the work, but had not suffered anything through depreciation. That was on the basis of $2 per foot, and now they admit that it ought to be $3.

HIS EXCELLENCY:-Was the only basis they worked on loss during the work?

Mr. CALTHROP:-They paid us $15,000; that could not have been for depreci- ation in the capital value. They say it was only worth $2 per foot; it brought $110,000. Now, they say it was worth $3 per foot. They ought to have paid us $32,800 more.than they paid at that time.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL:-Governor Black's Award was long anterior to the date to which you have been referring.

Mr. CALTHROP:-It refers to the time when we were offered $15,000. Now Mr. Danby, says it is worth $3. At the same period-1895-he says it is worth $3 per square foot. So I say there is a loss to which we are entitled, and that is $18,000. Mr. Danby, as I am going to shew, says that those works which we complained about so much, were no injury to us, and he went on to say that they were rather a benefit. He says [reading from Mr. Danby's Report] and he does not offer anything at all for the loss sustained during that period. Now, Your Excellency, I would like to draw your attention to the Treasury Minute, and, in that minute, nothing was allowed us during that period of our loss.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL :-) -Not because we believed your land was worth a dollar per foot more, but we offered it on Musso's claim; we did not offer it to you because we thought your land was worth any more.

Mr. CALTHROP-I am only taking the statement which Mr. Danby makes now, and that is that the land was worth at that time $3 per square foot. Now, there is another matter which I am going to deal with, and that is the fact that there has been no alteration from the time that the Godowns were first rated until the time it ceased to be our property. It was always rated on the basis of $6,600. I am going to explain how it was. People are not in the habit of quarrelling, when their property is rated very much under its real value. It was rated in 1888 at $6,600, and very probably that is the right value to have placed on it at that date. Under the old Rating Ordinance of 1888, an owner of property, if he is un owner of Godowns, has only to fill in the tonnage capacity of his Godowns. We had no reason to complain that the Government undervalued it. All we had to do was to fill up the storage capacity. I was going to point out that it was very probably nightly rated in 1888, but there is very little doubt that as time went on the property became worth considerably more than $6,600. The old Ordinance reads [reads from Ordinance]. Of course when our Godowns first opened, naturally enough, we did not make then the amount which we did later on.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL:-There was no depreciation in the value of your Lot between the date of the Ordinance and 1899.

Mr. CALTHROP :-As a matter of fact, the value went up very much. I take-

What

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL:-The business went up very considerably.