The Clutha Leader. BALCLUTHA : FRIDAY, JULY 11, 1890.

Clutha Leader, Volume XVII, Issue 834, 11 July 1890, Page 4

The Clutha Leader. BALCLUTHA : FRIDAY, JULY 11, 1890.

From two or three things .that have lately cqme,before the Otago.and Other land boards, it . would appbar that; ja married woman can . legally take up .a small run, but that if she does>o;sno must : reside upon it. This as all Wry well if the husband himself .is, nc-t r at the same time under similar obligations as to other land. In this case the husband' can reside with, his wife ,bn. her r,un. But if he himself is uncsr similar obligations as to ! other ' land, then the husband and wife .are m.thii position, that in order to give effect to

'the law they must live apart. We <cannot believe that, the legislature intended thus to .divorce husband and wife* even for a -time. 1 ' We have therefore looked up various Acts of Parliament to see how, this curious order of things has eprue about. -...-; . r Previous to .1872.,.. the- only way •of disposing. of land,, at least in Otago, was for cash. There were few restrictions J as to the disposal of land, and^ certainly neither age nor -sex were considered in this matter. In the year referred to, . however, an Act was passed which introduced an entirely new feature as regards the •disposal of ; Crown lands— viz., the "feature how .known as the deferredpay chant system. The Act of 1872 ■enabled persons to take "up land in; this way to the extent of 200 acres. It was thought that the State would not he justified in giving more land than this to one person or household, especially as it might be presumed that persons 1 taking up land in this way would not have very much money with which to improve it. With the view of preventing speculation the Act contained a clause to the effect that any j person taking up land in this way shonid reside two years and a-half upon it. One might suppose that this provision would of itself have been sufficient to prevent married women taking upland, because to give, efleet to the law it would be necessary that they should live apart .from their husbands. But to prevent all misunderstanding it was expressly provided that no married woman who had not received a judicial separation from her, ftnsband, or a protection order, should fee able to take up land on deferredpayment. -.This provision as regards married women was embodied in the Act of 1877 which took the place of the Act of 1872; : a«d it is embodied in the Act of 1885 which took the place of the Act of 1877. The Act of 1872 has been changed in many respects, but as regards the power of a married woman to take up land under deferred-payment, tho law i 3 just the same as it was in 1872. In the Act of 1877 a new feature was introduced — viz., the feature of disposing of pastoral lands on deferred payment. Married women are by a clause in the Act debarred from taking up this class of land also. The Act of 1877 regained in force till 1885, when the Act of this lastnamed year took its place, just as the Act of 1877 took the place of the Act of 1872. One prominent feature of the Act of 1885 was the abolition of the deferred-payment system as regards pastoral lands and the substitution in its place of what has come to be known as the small run system. The most of the clauses relating to pastoral deferred-payment land were transferred, though necessarily in a modified form, from the Act of 1877 to the Act of 1885, and made applicable to the new system of small runs. For instance, the clause as to residence was so transferred, though in a modified form, but the clause as to married women was r.ot so transferred. The elfect of this omission is that a married woman can take up a small run, but still she must reside upon ifc, In the case of a married woman whose husband has also taken up a small run, and who in order to hold it must reside on it, the husband and wife cannot possibly live together and yet comply with the law. The question arises, was the omission intentional or accidental 1 ? We do not ] think it was intentional. If it had been intentional there can, we think, be no doubt that the la-v would have made some provision by which, in such a case as that to which we have referred, the married woman would be able to live with her husband. In proof of this, we may refer to what took place in 1877. A single woman 1 had, under the Act of 1872, taken up a i deferred-payment section. A single ; man in the neighbourhood had also taken up a deferred-payment ' section. The two did the most natural thing in the world. ' They got married. It seemed very hard that this happy pair j should live apart. The Act of 1877 provided that in such a case as this residence should.be compulsory only on one" of. the sections. ; and not on the two. It is evident from this that the legislature has no wish to separate husband and wife. We may fairly conclude from this that the omission was purely accidental. The fault appears to be due in the first instance to the draughtsman, who by some oversight omitted to transfer the clause in question. The result of this omission is that there are several small runs which have been ta,ken up by married women whose husbands are also the lessees of small runs. These women must, as the law now stands, reside on their smaU runs, $nd this is necessarily interfering very niuch with family arrangements. And .now comes the question as to what should be done in the circumstances. In so far as married women have up to the : present time taken up small runs there can be only one answer, and that is that the legislature should so filter tho law as to enable these women to live with their husbands. There can V»e little doubt that it was nev«r intended that they should bo able to take up runs, and probably every one ■of these women knew from the residence provisions of the Act that they were getting themselves into difficulties. But still, as the omission is the fault of the legislature, the best

and'oniy way out of the difficulty is to do as we have: indicated. As to what' should be done in the future as regards married women taking up small runs two courseware open ; the one is to dispense with the condition of residence in 'the case of a married woman who takes up a, small run, and the other is to withdraw from a married , woman the power to take up a small run — thus placing her as regards a small run in the position she occupies at present as regards agricultural deferred payment land; We do not consider it worth our while to enter into the merits of these two alternative methods of proceedure, for it it well known that the Minister of Lands is opposed altogether to the system of small runs. It has already been" practically done away 'with, and probably during the present session it will be abolished by legislaI tion.

It seems the Opposition have at length been constrained to admit they are powerless for good or evil, either in Parliament or out of it. No doubt the Premier's enforced retirement from debate inspired them with a ray of hope that they would be able in his absence to make progress towards the much - coveted goal — tho Treasury benches. A little experience, however, has convinced them that, even without their veteran leader, Ministers are "too many for them." They (the, Opposition) find that although they may obstruct business, prevent the passing of useful measures, and protract the session to an unnecessary length, yet they will not thereby be getting any nearer to the object of their ambition. And this is not all, for although the present is the last session of the Parliament, and an appeal will shortly be made to the constituencies, they realise that such appeal would not avail them without a more able and popular name to conjure by. To go to* the country on the ticket of the Hon. Mr Ballance for Premier, would only result -in certain defeat. This they all recognise, and they therefore have appealed to Sir Robert Stout to come to their aid. It is reported that every member of the Opposition, including the leader, have, in a " round robin " to Sir Robert, urged him to enter the political ' arenci at the ensuing election, pledging themselves loyally to follow his lead in next Pai-liament. Should Sir Robert comply with their wishes he would have no difficulty in obtaining a seat, and with Sir Harry incapaciated for office, the complexion of affairs; would be completely altered. -However humiliating the implication of present helplessness may be, there can be no doubt the Opposition are now on a more hopeful track.