The Clutha Leader. BALCLUTHA: FRIDAY, AUG. 30, 1878.

Clutha Leader, Volume V, Issue 216, 30 August 1878, Page 5

The Clutha Leader. BALCLUTHA: FRIDAY, AUG. 30, 1878.

When recently addressing his constituents, Mr Thomson explained the mistake that had been made by the Assembly last session in the matter of the price of the deferred payment land. Although it is high time that the annual tinkering of the land laws were given up, there are a few amendments urgently required, and which we hope to see carried out this session. The mistake of last year above referred to should be corrected, and the price reduced. It seems to us that no cast-iron rule should be fixed as to price. Some land that has been sold on deferred payment is many times more valuable than other land that has been sold in the same way. Why should the purchaser of the latter have to pay as much as the purchaser of the former ? He does not get the same value for his money. If a private party were selling the land he would classify it according to its quaHty and its advantages through proximity to raUways, centres of population, &c. We see no reason why the Government should not adopt the same course. Again, it is quite antagonistic to the spirit and intention of the system of deferred payments that the aUotments should be exposed to sale by auction in the case of a plurality of appHcants. The system was adopted in order to give a start in life to individuals of the agricultural class who were unable to compete with capitalists for smaU pieces of freehold lands. The system was not adopted for the benefit of the monied class, and yet, by disposing of the land by auction, only that class can take advantage of it. But for the sale by auction we would not see capitalists and owners of large estates adding to these deferred payment lands. Everyone knows that this has been most impudently done, while dummyism has been extensively carried on, all because of the facilities for this the sale by auction afforded. Take, for example, a runholder whc has purchased his pre-emptive right, and the adjoining land is opened for sale on deferred payments. He of course wiU be anxious to enlarge his freehold estate, and will apply for an adjoining section. Numerous friends and servants wiU be got to apply for others, and a bona fide deferred payment settler has no chance when he has to contend against such a ring in the auction room. If the right to the aUotments were decided by ballot, the object of any such combination would be . defeated, and as a rule the sections would f aU into the hands of individuals belonging to the class for which they were intended.

Another matter in connection with our land sales that requires attention is the survey. As this is at present carried out it would almost seem as if the Legislature, the Waste Lands Board, and the Surveyors were aU playing at cross purposes. Take, for example, the case of the land recently sold in the Warepa Hundred. This was admirably suited for sale a3 pastoral land in blocks of about 5000 acres each on deferred payments. The law provides for the disposal of land in this manner. But although some of the land referred to is as rough as any to be found in this country, it was surveyed into sections of 200 acres or so,, and exposed ] for sale at the upset price of Ll an acre. The inevitable consequence was — and this was pointed out beforehand — there was no competition. The runholder got what he wished of it at the upset price. The remainder he wUI get the use of gratuitously for all time for nothing. Had the land been parceUed off in suitable blocks according to its character, and sold for cash or on deferred payment, there would have been very keen competition. It would in that case have fetched a handsome price and would have faUen into numerous hands, and a considerable addition would thus have been made to the population of the" district. Here the mistake was that the land was not surveyed into such areas as would aUow of purchasers applying it to the purpose for which it alone was fitted. It was rough pastoral land, surveyed into sections suitable only for the richest agricultural land. We understand some of the members of the Waste Land Board mUdly remonstrated upon the subject, but this was regarded as such an interference with the official dignity and duty of the Chief Surveyor as could not be recognised by that gentleman. The question arises as to

whom the Chief Surveyor is responsible. If to the Government, then he is not properly instructed, or does not carry out his instructions. If to the Waste Lands Board, then he is a long way above his masters. If to himself alone, then he is not the proper man to place in such a position. We do not know whether legislation is necessary to place this matter upon a proper footing, but if it be, then 1 it should be attended to during the present Bession of ParHament, so as to prevent a sacrifice of the public lands to the injury of the revenue and to the retarding of settlement. When it is decided to open up any land for sale it should be minutely examined by thoroughly disinterested, practical, and experienced men, who should report as to its character and the size of sections into which it should be surveyed, so as to be convenient for the purpose for which it naturally is fitted. WliUe, therefore, we think it would be unwise to materially alter our land laws at the present time, there are a Tew small amendments absolutely necessary, and it is to be 1 hoped a short Amendment Bill containing provisions in the direction we have indicated wiU be passed during this session.