THE MEETING OF DEFERREDPAYMENT SELECTORS.

Evening Star, Issue 5994, 29 May 1882, Page 1

THE MEETING OF DEFERREDPAYMENT SELECTORS.

According to the telegraphed summary of the proceedings in the House of Representatives on Friday, it is not the present intention of the Government to propose that the land laws shall be amended either in the direction of constituting the land boards on an elective basis, reverting to the ballot system in the disposal of deferred-pay-ment allotments, or the limitation of the area that can be held by one firm or individual under pastoral leases. We are inclined to think that the Minister of Lands has been somewhat ill-advised in refusing consideration to the desirability of abolishing the auction system so far as it applies to land on deferred payments ; but in regard to the other two points on which he also gave a decided expression of his intentions, we believe he is right in objecting to alter the law.

At times we confess to have rather leaned towards elective boards, as being consistent in principle with democratic institu£i.on.s ; bu.t tKe result of the elective system in the education boards has somewhat shaken our faith. So small an interest is taken in these nonpolitical elections that they seem naturally to fall into the hands of cliques, and consequently throughout the Colony these boards and other analogous bodies are not a success. Mr Rolleston has taken up the position of being potentially, instead of nominally, the Minister of the Department, and is the first holder of the portfolio who has fully accepted his responsibility to Parliament for all and every act of administration. From this position neither himself nor his successors can retrograde, and therefore the land boards must needs act in accordance with the Ministerial policy and Ministerial will * in all essential matters. Should the members of any board decline to do this it is evident they will have to resigu their functions. Under these circumstances there is no good reason why the constitution of the Board should be altered, and we do not believe that the elective system could possibly give as good men as those nominated by the Government under a sense of direufc responsibility to Parliament. The Otago appointments of the Hall Government were irreproachable. The best qualified persons have been selected without consideration of their politics, and the result is a board working harmoniously and vigorously in the true interests of settlement. The limitation of the area of Crown lands to be Leld by any one firm or individual on pastoral le«ise is one of those impractical proposals with which agitators of the Vincent Pyke school are wont to "tickle the ears of the " groundlings.". Considering the status of the wool-growing business, its vital importance to New Zealand, the capital invested, and the fact that it is not and never can be properly pursued except with the advantages of experience, skill, and capital, no Ministry in their senses would entertain the idea of crippling such a staple industry by destroying the existing method on which it is conducted, on the mere chance that under some other system not yet specifically defined equally beneficial results to the Colony might be eventually realised. When suitable land for real settlement is required for any run, it can under the existing law with facility and without expense be taken; but to cut up the mountainous regions of Otago into small sheep farms and drive the present class of pastoral tenants with their enterprise out of the country would be absolute lunacy in regard to all economical considerations.

We took occasion a few weeks ago to review in a cursory manner the proposals for alterations in the deferredpayment system which were embodied in a draft Bill forwarded to us by Mr J. A. Connell. On the 27th inst. a number of selector?, representing many others unable to come to town, met Mr Connell by appointment, when the whole question was discussed, resolutioDS adopted, and the draft of a petition to Parliament, embodying the views of the settlers occupying their holdings under the deferred-payment system, submitted and approved. A full report of the proceedings appeared in our issue of Saturday ; and it will be noted that there are three distinct sets of grievances in respect of which legislative relief is sought. It is asserted, and, we believe, with truth, that the auction system has induced, in a very large number of instances, far higher prices to be given for land than it was, or could possibly be, worth. The selectors, therefore, who are suffering thus, in consequence no doubt of their own imprudence, desire that their allotments may be re-valued, and that they may be relieved of the heavy handicap they have placed on themselves in the half-yearly instalments. r i hen there are a certain number who made their selections during the period when the Crown Land Sales Act, 1877, was in force—a moso stupidly-contrived measure»introduced by the Grey Government, which had the practical effect, inter alia, of raising the upset price of deferredpayment land to £3 an acre. The selectors who have a grievance under this Act, it may be presumed, obtained their allotment withouts competition, and they maintain that the land is not worth the money, demanding that in justice it should be considered as having been purchased at 30s an acre, and credit given to them for the amount already paid in instalments accordingly. The case of this class of selectors rests on the fact, acknowledged both

by Mr Stout and Mr Sheehan, that it was never intended to raise the price to {.£3. The third distinct grievance for which immediate remedy is asked is general to all deferred-payment selectors. The conditions of the license under the Act of 1877 do not provide, in the event of forfeiture and compulsory sale by the Crown, for credit being given to the selector for any moneys he may have paid by way of instalments; nor has the Crown any option legally but to declare forfeiture in all cases of non-payment of instalments. These conditions w we discussed recently, and expressed our opinion that they are inequitable and unnecessarily oppressive. This is practically realised in the extreme repugnance displayed by the Commissioner of Crown Lands to, put the law in force; and our readers will recollect that about eighteen months ago special facilities were, by a stretch of administrative power, afforded to a number of defaulters in order to their rescue from a position which appeared hopeless. We are not prepared to say whether the proposals of Mr Connell are altogether practical or likely to meet the difficulties set forth by the selectors; but some of the ideas are, as we stated in our previous article, worthy of consideration, and appear to have commended themselves to the meeting on Saturday. It has, however, to be borne in mind that the present de-ferred-payment system as a whole has worked satisfactorily, and that the selectors in trouble, owing to the high price given for their allotments, are a very inconsiderable minority of the whole. The principle of remitting public obligations by special legislation is a very dangerous one—the precedent once established, it is difficult to foresee the end. The Government possibly take this view, and whilst sympathising with these particular selectors, would rather meet their case otherwise than by statutory remission of engagements. The question, however, of substituting the ballot system for auction is quite an open one, and if there is good reason to suppose that the alteration will prevent selectors in the future from over-burthening themselves, the mere consideration of a diminution of the receipts from deferred-payment lands should not be allowed to stand in the way of such an amendment of the law.