The Lyttelton Times. SATURDAY, MARCH 10, 1866.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XXV, Issue 1633, 10 March 1866, Page 2

The Lyttelton Times. SATURDAY, MARCH 10, 1866.

If Mr. Travers has not got a very sound scheme of amendment for our "Waste Land Eegulations generally, he has at least got a very popular grievance to urge against one part of them. The pre-emptive right system is beyond all doubt working unsatisfactorily ; and Mr. Travers has had the tact to import into his canvass for the Superintendency a measure of indignation against the pre-emptive right holders, in which all the rest—the large majority-—of the public are willing to join. It is a fact that capital cannot obtain such ready investment in our waste lands as, the holders would desire. Nor can working men, who desire to farm a piece of land of their own, get the land which they want. Nor does the Government, as pointed out by Mr. Travers to-day, receive the revenue which desiring purchasers are ready to pay into the coffers of the State. These are very serious evils, and it behoves all who take an interest in the welfare of the province to join in putting an end to them as quickly as possible. But we beg that the Land Law Reformers will not be rash. It does not follow that the whole code of regulations is rotten at the core, because one provision among them all is productive of evil. Perhaps, if we begin by clearly understanding the exact nature of the grievance, we shall be able to suggest some mild and yet/adequate remedy: The runkolder who improves the country 'which he occupies deserves

some protection. He not only gives a guarantee to the public of his permanent settlement in the province, but in the very process he makes the country more productive than it was before. It is very greatly to the advantage of the public that the country should be improved and made to produce more largely from year to year ; but this will not be done unless the process be advantageous to the individual who pursues it as well as to the public at large. If it were open to any one to buy the squatter's house, garden, paddocks, or other improvements, without any notice, no squatter would think of making any such improvements on his run; and the increased value which the country ought to receive would be lost. The easiest method to secure justice to both sides is to give the owner of the improvements a pre-emptive right over the land on which his improvements stand, so that he may be warned in time if any stranger should desire to buy them up. If this general principle were satisfactorily worked out in practice, the result would be that, until the land on any run became worth buying for agricultural purposes, the squatter would not be called on to pay the price of rural land for it; but as soon as, by the fact of an application being made, the intrinsic value of the land should be proved to be £2 an acre, the squatter would be required to pay that price for it or let it go. The time at which the runholder should be called upon to purchase is thus fixed by a natural law, according to the general spirit of the Canterbury land system, and not arbitrarily. The principle of pre-emptive rights is admittedly sound: but there is a fault in the method of carrying it into practice, which has robbed it of many advantages and created the evils which we have stated above. From the enquiries which we have made as to the working of the pre-emptive right system, we are disposed to lay the whole blame upon one mistake in the law itself. Some blame has been attached to the Land Board ; and doubtless errors have been made in particular cases which have caused the discretion of the Board to be impugned. But we do not assent to the sweeping condemnation which has been levelled at the allowance given, for instance, for boundary fences on runs. These fences are in point of fact very expensive to erect; they enable the country to grow and export a very much larger quantity of wool than would otherwise be the case: and it would be manifestly unfair that any stranger should step in and not only buy the land but accommodate himself with a fence to it at the same time. In short, we do not object to the mere holding of a pre-emptive right by the person who has invested largely in improvements, but to that provision intheregulations according to which the exercise of the right places the holder of it in a position of enormous superiority to the applicant who desires to purchase the land. The governing principle which we have laid down is that the occupier should be required either to buy the land or to give it up as soon as an applicant to purchase at the fixed price presents himself. That is, the runholder must either let the farmer have the land or pay the same price for it himself. But the law gives this great privilege to the squatter: that he may retain his pre-emptive right over the whole block, although he only buys a fragment of it when challenged for the whole. For example, a farmer may be ready to buy 200 acres; but the squatter may prevent him from buying any by himself paying for 20 acres only. The 180 acres remaining are in point of fact wanted for settlement; but the runholder is permitted to retain them for a still longer period for nothing. This is not an original provision of the Regulations; it was introduced in the year 1858, and was, we believe, the result of a compromise made with some runholders who wanted a preemptive right over their whole runs, and not over their improvements only. The following sub-section of Clause 66 contains the mischievous words italicized:—

If the holder of any pre-emptive right other than those created by clause GO of the Waste Lands Regulations shall neglect or refuse to purchase any portion of the land applied for, such portion shall, from and immediately after such neglect or refusal, he released from all right of pre-emption, and open to purchase on the terms of these Regulations, as if the same had not been included in any pre-emptive right.

The pre-emptive rights created by Clause 60 are those on runs; the others are the original Canterbury Association rights.

Our inquiries do not point to any other serious fault in the pre-emptive right system. "We think the "Waste Lands Board is interested in curtailing rather than unduly expanding the area of pre-emption; and if so, there is no need to withdraw its directionary power to determine what are " sufficient improvements" within the meaning of the law. What we have to do is simply to devise a remedy for the actual fault. It is clear that harm is being done every day of its operation to capitalists, working settlers, and the State itself. A proposal has been made to remedy part of the grievance by forming a company with capital sufficient to challenge systematically every part of any preemptive right which may be worth settling upon. The State would get its money, and the Company would make its profit by retailing the land to intending purchasers at a sufficient advance. This is a promising speculation enough; but it does not meet the real difficulty; it would give the settler his land, to be sure, but not at £2 an acre. The difficulty of getting the land would be removed, but an enhanced price would be substituted for it. The land of the province would still be tied up against the intending settler of small means. The obvious remedy lies in amending the law. Let the words in italics in clause 66, as quoted above, be struck out, as well as a few words in the adjoining clauses which are dependent upon them, and let all pre-emp-tive rightß be dealt with as those of the Canterbury Association have

always been. If there be a person willing to buy the land, the State should require the occupant to purchase it, or should have the right to sell whatever he does not buy to any one else.

A eatheb lively interchange of complimentary questions and answers has lately appeared in our columns anent the Waipara Eoad Board. A Eatepayer, signing himself "Querist," writes to us putting certain queries to Mr. Eich, late Engineer of the Board ; and Mr. Eich in somewhat flippant style answers some and begs off others, as it suits him. All this i» interesting enough, we dare say, to the people of the district, but otherwise not of much public concern. A recent Provincial Gazette contains the appointment of the same Mr. Eich to be " Commissioner" of the District, and this brings the matter within the scope of public interest. By the Eoads District Ordinance power is reserved to the Superintendent, in case of a Eoad Board neglecting to carry out the provisions of the Ordinance, to appoint a Commissioner, in whom " all the powers, rights, privileges, and duties of such Board shall be vested." We j believe the appointment of Mr. Eich ' is the first of the kind that has taken place in the province. And we venture to think it is a mistake. Till very recently Mr. Eich has been a paid servant of the Board, remarkable apparently only for the fact that he re-1 ceived a somewhat extravagant salary for the performance of easy duties ; and now he is suddenly metamorphosed into the Eoad Board itself. The rate-payers of any one of our populous suburban districts would, we are sure, protest at once against such an appointment in their own case. Why then should it be permitted in the Waipara district ? Putting aside the fact that Mr. Eich is very unpopular among a large portion of the ratepayers, that he is an active political supporter of Mr. Lance, who was chairman of the Board and by whose laches the Board has ceased to exist, we contend that such large powers as are vested in a " Commissioner " should only be entrusted to a resident proprietor with a property qualification sufficient to place his real interest in the affairs of the district above doubt or suspicion. Of all the questionable appointments made by the present Government, that of Mr. Eich is one of the least discreet.