Sessional_Paper_1905 — Page 704

626

Mr. CALTHROP:-The principle on which we ought to have been rated is this we ought to find out what a hypothetical tenant would pay, and from that value we ought to have deducted the Crown Rent. The value of property was also going up and down: it was going up chiefly. I may point out that the way in which it was rated was not on the rental value, but on the capacity.

HIS EXCELLENCr:-Was it always rated on that capacity?

Mr. CALTROP-After we left it they must have inade an investigatiou, not on the tonnage capacity, but on its letting capacity, which is the proper method. In our time the rental never appeared under the rental value.

There was

never any rental value to appear. They simply filled in the tonnage capacity, and that always remained the same. How they came to the conclusion, I do not know. I only suggested that going on the rating value is utterly misleading, because it is unfair. I think anyone would say that the rental value was more than $6,600. As a matter of fact, it would probably be $10,000. It would be half-full all the year round. Tonnage capacity they take for all the year round.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL :-We say that the land did not depreciate in value. It always remained the same.

Mr. CALTHROP:-There was one matter I was going to call Your Excellency's attention to, and it was where Mr. Howard refers to the basis on which compen- sation should be given, and that is where he refers to a former case of compensation, where it was held [reading from Petition "In no case should we get more damages, etc.] In 1857 when there was another Reclamation Scheme-

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL:-The Reclamation Scheme of 1857 can have no bearing whatever on the Reclamation Scheme of 1889.

Mr. CALTHROP-I am not arguing a point of law. As I have said before, we are not here with any legal right. We have already been told by the Colonial Secretary that we are not to take it as a legal right. We have got to take what- ever Your Excellency may choose to order. I was going to say that the new Lot was sold for $133,500, then the right for a pier was sold for $15,000, making a total of $148,000.

HIS EXCELLENCY:--You have already been compensated for your pier, so that the matter of the pier would not come into this question.

Mr. CALTHROP -We are only asking for compensation on the Lot itself.

; was just pointing out that the whole thing was about $115,000 and-

I

HIS EXCELLENCY :-The Marine Lot Owners paid a certain amount for the Reclamation.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL :-They made a clear profit over the affair.

Mr. CALTHROP:-Now, with regard to the evidence which I was going to put before Your Excellency, I do not know whether you wish ne to read it over.

HIS EXCELLENCY:-We will take the documentary evidence with which we have been supplied as read. I understand that in the first instance you are going to support your contention that the value of the lot before reclamation was $282,000 by the evidence of Messrs. Leigh & Orange ?

Mr. CALTHROP-I am going to take it where it ceased to be a Marine Lot. am only going to call your attention to the valuation of Messrs. Leigh & Orange. They, at that time, thought the property would cease to be a Godown, and simply valued the Lot without the buildings.