The Evening Star. WEDNESDAY, MAY 6, 1908.

Evening Star, Issue 12944, 6 May 1908, Page 4

The Evening Star. WEDNESDAY, MAY 6, 1908.

We understand that some members of the Land Board object to The Land Board our application of the term and Otokalke. “vacillating” to their

course of action in regard to two claims for preferential treatment under section 80 of last session’s land legislation. We have no desire to do them any injustice; therefore wo set out, without comment, tho facts as they narrate them, leaving tho public (especially those who are primarily concerned in tho due administration of the public estate) to judge between us. It is claimed that when the Board first considered tho applications of Messrs M’Kellar and Mitchell they took these men’s verbal statements, as is done in all cases under the Land for Settlements Act. Tho applicants appeared in person, and were examined in support of their allegations, more particularly as to the position each man occupied, either on Otekaike or on the property they were actually working on when tho sale of this estate was effected. They were also categorically questioned as to what effect (if any) the sale would have on their prospects of future employment. Both men affirmed distinctly that in tho event of Otekaike being sold to the Crown they would lose their employment. On this latter point they were directly questioned by the chairman of the Board. There was, it appears, some doubt in the minds of the Board whether the sale of Otekaike necessarily involved the disposal of other properties owned by Campbell and Son, hut the Board were eventually convinced that it was the policy of the company to sell their properties together, and that, as a consequence, these men would he deprived of their livelihood. Thereupon the Board granted their applications in terms of the much-discussed section 80, subject, of course, to the approval of the Minister of Lands. Nothing further was heard of the matter until the eve of the ballot for the Otekaike section s* when, the Under.

Secretary of Lands requested the Board to reconsider it. In compliance with that request, a special meeting of the Board was held, and the case reopened. On that occasion both applicants testified on oath, and their previous statements were not only borne out, but confirmatory evidence was supplied by the manager of the selling company. In the face of that evidence of bona fides the Board felt that they were bound to give effect to the intention of the Legislature by advising the Minister that both these applicants were entitled to preferential consideration in terms of clause 80. They advised the Minister accordingly, and the Judges have now upheld the legality and correctness of their procedure.