THE OTEKAIKE LAND CASE.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXIX, Issue 67, 18 March 1908, Page 4

THE OTEKAIKE LAND CASE.

The difficulty that arose some weeks I ago over the cutting up of the Otekaike estate has now reached the stage of 1 judicial procedure, and it may be as well to put the facts briefly before our ' readers. When arrangements were being made for the disposal of Otekaike in sections in the ordinary way, the Otago Land Board applied to the Minister of Lands to reserve four sections, in accordance with the clause in the Act which allows ''preference to selectors who have already worked on the land' that is to be disposed of. Mr. McNab granted the request, but Mr. Maepherson, M.P., then reported that the Board had arranged to give preference to two men, one of whom had never worked on Otekaike, -while the other had left the service of the owners before the estate was taken over for settlement. The matter was investigated, and it was referred back to the Land Board with the opinion of the Solicitor-General that the facts submitted ought to prevent the concession of preference. The Board at first refused to alter its original recommendation ; but as arrangements for the ballot are now rapidly progressing, Messrs. Mitchell and McKellar, to whom the sections in question had been granted, have decided to test the legality of their claim in Court. So far as the claimants are concerned there is no doubt that they have good reason to complain of the uncertainty in which the interpretation of this clause of the Act seems to be involved. As the "Otago Daily Times" has pointed out, '"a recommendation iv their favour was submitted to the Minister, the issue of leases to them was approved by the Minister, whose written endorsement of the Board's recommendation is held by them, and deposits have been accepted from them in respect of their rentals." Moreover, the grantees have probably made all financial and other arrangements for carrying out the agreement they had made with the Land Board. Of course, the qt|cstion that the Court has to decide is whether the grant of the leases to them was legal or not, and on that point we can naturally say nothing. But the case has broupht out the necessity for defining the whole position more distinctly by a clear legal interpretation of the Act. Several Opposition papers, we may remark, have seized upon this incident as an excuse for an attack upon Liberal land administration. According to one critic, Mr. McNab has been guilty of gross partiality: but the Minister of Lands has ejrplaine.d in his own defence that under the present system the Minister can only say ''yes" or ''no" to what the Land Board chooses to do. The allotments on which preference is granted aro h'xod, not by the Minister, but by tho Land Boards. The size and character of tho sections, of course., depend upon the general nature of the country, and Mr. McNab had certainly nothing to do with this side of the ease. We can only hope that the Court will reach a decision that will satisfy the demands of justico and equity without inflicting any undue hardship on Messrs. Mitchell and MdK.ellar.