The Daily Telegraph. FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 1886.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 4769, 19 November 1886, Page 2

The Daily Telegraph. FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 1886.

At the last meoling of the Waste Lands Board a letter was read from Messrs Sainsbury and Logan, the solicitors of Mr Purvis Russell, stating that if the Crown required a portion of that gentleman's estate of Woburn adjoining the railway line, it could be purchased at £25 per acre. It will be remembered that some months ago, when Mr Buchanan was a member of the Laud Board, he carried a resolution affirming the desirability of acquiring for special settlements certain lands, of which Woburn, near Waipukurau, formed a part. We believe nothing has come out of that resolution, nor was it likely for the law, on the passing of such a recommendation to the Government, only gives power to the Crown to enter into negotiation for the purchase of lands. It does not compel the owner to sell, nor can the Crown re-enter into possession should tho owner refuse to entertain tho proposal. For purposes of public works such as railways, roads, or fortifications the Crown can take possession and either settle the purchase money by either private contract or through an Arbitration Court; but for special settlements the Government has no such power. And the majority of our readers, bearing in mind the late Stark scandal, will agree that it would be very unwise for Parliament to entrust any Government with such power unless it were securely fenced in against the chance of using it to reward apolitical friend or injure a policial opponont. The slightest consideration of the subject will convince anyone that as the members of Waste Lands Boards are nominated by the Government, nothing could be easier than for a Board to recommend the Crown to re-enter into ' possession of certain estates, nor would it be difficult to show that such estates were required for purposes of settlement. In some cases it would assuredly happen that no greater service could be rendered the owner than to find a purchaser in tho Crown; and in other cases an irreparable injury might be inflicted on an owner by the enforced sale of his property. It is easy to see what a tremendously powerful political engine could bo built up under a law that would give the Crown the right to enter into possession of private lands under the ploa that they were required for purposes of settlement. We do not say that if such a law were passed it would be used in the way we have indicated that it might bo employed; but history shows that it is the rule rather than the exception that Governments are not immaculate, and that it is safer not to entrust them with too much power. It is, however, the power to reenter into possessions of lands that havo been sold by the Crown that the Hon. Mr Ballanco covets. It is reported says tho Wairarapa Daily that "Mr Ballance is really and truly engaged in preparing a Bill for the expropriation of large estates." And it adds that a Bill of this kind ought to upset a stronger Ministry than that of which he is a member, and the measure now in course of preparation may be useful from this point of view —out of evil may come good ! We presume the Premier is a consenting party to the introduction into our little political world of the Ballance bantling. He will hardly be an enthusiastic admirer of it because when he became Sir Eobert Stout he put a new garment over his old Radical coat, and we begin to regard him as a promising Conservative. We do not know if Sir Julius Vogel has been consulted on Ihe expropriation scheme. It is right in the teeth of his past expressed utterances, and if he is to be one of its sponsors he will require to turn his garment inside out. Tho principle that tho State may for certain public purposes resume the possession of private estates, is practically admitted by the numerous purchases which havo been made for the construction of public railways, and has been emphasised by the Stark purchase, but tho further application of the principle in the direction proposed by Mr Ballance is an absurdity in the present condition of New Zealand. When it is understood by the public in New Zealand it will be scouted from one end of the colony to the other. It appears feasible that if Brown has too much land and Jones has none the State does a good thing in arranging for Jones to obtain a slice of tho big estate of Brown, but if by and by when Jones has settled on his land, planted it and made it his home and the apple of his eye, what will he say if he in his turn is called upon to give up a portion of his farm to Robinson. Will he have Brown's land on the understanding that he is liable some day to have to share with Robinson ? What Mr Ballanco's new Bill means is tampering with the security of landed estate in the colony, and by doing this he is reducing the selling value of every acre in New Zealand. The people of this colony won't stand this, and Mr Ballance, if he fancies that thoy will, is simply running his head agaiust a stone fence. The fraud and chicanery incidental to a scheme of expropriation would deter

any man but a fanatic from attempting to carry it out. We could not trust even a Conservative Ministry to carry an expropriation scheme without putting money directly or indirectly into tho pockets of their friends, and as far a"s trustworthiness goes a Conservative Ministry ia infinitely preferable to a Eadical Cabinet. We do not mean to say that the instinct of honesty is not alive within the breasts of Mr Ballanco and his colleagues, but they have a fearful crowd of hungry followers at their heels who must be fed, and who are always worrying their leaders for mouthfuls. An expropriation scheme would be a rich banquet _c _t°? c gentry, and however reluctant f\f might be to let them devour the_ &J?io estate, they would be simply tornTPPreces if they resisted their importunities.