DISCOURAGING SETTLEMENTS.

Press, Volume LVIII, Issue 11151, 18 December 1901, Page 6

DISCOURAGING SETTLEMENTS.

The Amended Land for Settlement Act which passed last . session is, in some respects, a fearful and wonderful measure. One can hardly conceive anything more Kkely to check settlement, rather than assist it, than, some of the alterations in the law effected by it. £he Canterbury Land Board is not composed of bigoted opponents of the Government, yet "by the mouth of Mr. John* MdLachia>n, a staunch Seddonian, it has roundly condemned the amendment of the Act, -which, it declares, "does not improve the method* of disposal by ballot," and is "tedious and unsatisfactory." It may be <aa well to explain briefly what is the alteration complained of. Under the old Act, supposing that, a block of land for settlement was divided into n> dozen allotments, a man might put down, his name as an applicant for one, two, or any number of sections ibfe chose. . If 'he was the only applicant for a certain section he got ft, if there were a dozen applicants it wast balloted for, and if he did not win he had the chance of getting another of the sections for which 'he ; had entered. AH this ie changed. If the number of applicants exceeds the aumlber of allotments to be disposed of, the extra applicants are balloted out until the numbers of applicants and allotments are equal, and then a second ballot is taken, and the winner of any allotment must take that block of land or go without any. Has means may only justify him in taking up, say, 250 acres, but if "he diraws a section of 500 acres he must take it or leave it. It can easily be imagined that with a large number of groups of allotments open, for settlement, and good competition on the part of intending settlers, the new ' regulations would be found to be unworkable. Even with , only five sections to dispose of at Timaru the ot&er day the Land Board found the new method cumbrous and slow. This, however, is not the worst feature of Mr. Duncan's improved Act. It acts, as we (have said 1 , as a distinct check on settlement by limiting the chances of wouldbe settlers of 'securing land, and thus •discouraging them from applying. This effect is increased by the inclusion*, in the regulations (issued under the authority of the Governor-ia-Cpuncil, of a> clause which we regard as little tfiiort of iniquitous. After describing how a successful applicant's deposit of an amount equal to a, halfryeare rent shall be treated, we find) thte foHow-

ing sentence--"There shall «ot be any | "right to withdraw aoy application, or ' "right to claim a refund of any deposit." Tide, if it means anything, means that unsuccessful applicants, in addition to losing a chance of wjnniag a, eecfa'on, anuefc also lose"itib«r which is neitlter-, benW' no* justice. It as true that there is some doubfi as to -whether the cladee- applies to el unsuccessful knd-seekera or to tihose only -who, having - dtoawn a section they do aot want, abandon it, and it is also true that thfe Load Board ia given power, at its dieoretion, to refund any dteposit on certain conditions. , But the doubtiFurconetructran of the clause does not mend matters in -tihe least, and we ihave it on. good authority that the possibility, of the Board retaining all deposit fees restrained a immber of people from applying fox tlhe Rapuwtai sections,- while it needed oil the Board's assurances that thJey did not intend to enforce the clause to induce actual applicants to let their names go into the ballot-box. The new .provisions - for faallotijig ore, in fact, another instances'of the foolish and careless tinkering with our legislation to which this Government is peculiarly given/ and the regulations as to thte deposit fee afford a proof of the danger of petmitting so wrooh power to pass into the hands of I the Governor-in-Council, a convenient phrase which hides the Minister of the ! Department.