THE Mount Ida Chronicle AND St. Bathans Weekly News. THURSDAY, JUNE 30, 1881. MR M'KERROW'S LETTER TO THE LAND BOARD.

Mount Ida Chronicle, Volume XI, Issue 613, 30 June 1881, Page 2

THE Mount Ida Chronicle AND St. Bathans Weekly News. THURSDAY, JUNE 30, 1881. MR M'KERROW'S LETTER TO THE LAND BOARD.

- ..... Thebk are marly, points that fix one's attention when reading Mr M'Kerrow's letter, addressed to the Waste Land Board. One of the first is the absence of any reference to the reservation of blocks.for future settlement. This is the more marked since Mr M'Kerrow has—very wisely, we think —stated that, to provide for the grazing .of r. settlers' stock, a Hundred, three or four times the size of the block occupied t for settlement, should be surveyed so as to enclose the'block. This, as we have said, is an excellent idea ; ■ but, if it is to be given effect to,"as we suppose is intended, it is. more necessary than ever that blocks for settlement should be picked out, and not released, unless done in a much. more temporary way than is possible under existing laws. Mr M'Kerrow's ! suggestion means that if a block of 3000 acres were thrown open for agricultural settlement; a JtLundred of 9,000 or 12,000 acres (three or four times the size of the block) would be laid off, so as to envelop it. The whole area of the block would then be 12,000 or 15,000 acres. It is proposed to offer the runs in sizfes varying from 1000 to perhaps 10,000 or ; 15,000 acres, in localities where the ; land is suitable for settlement; runs of 20,000 and 30,000 acres only being offered in high country. We are aware that the Land Act provides that, whenever land is wanted, the pastoral lessee shall give it up without compensation. But, by the proposal under consideration, the opening of a block for settlement would involve the,..cancellation of the licenses of perhaps two or three entire runs. And it might be necessary to do this before a lessee had been twelve months in occupation. Here would be a great hardship. If Mr M'Kerrow's idea is to be carried out, and we hope it will be, reservations of large blocks will have to be made at once.

It is noticeable, also, that Mr M'Kerrow attempts to mate no provision for the grazing of any person's stock but those of settlers. The subject is only half dealt with when the difficulty of the grazing of miners* stock,is not considered, and attempted to be solved. We thought it was recognised by the Minister that it was -necessary, to enable men to keep <their families from want, that they should be able to graze a few cows. The idea that the goldminer of 1881 is l able, to carry, on in the same, manner as the miner of 1861 did, should be erploded by this time. Many miners are now married, aud have made ho>mes for the'mselves, and they do not care to change their present mode of life; nor should there be any , necessity for them to do so. But the Government,', by its acts,. almost compels all but well-to-do miners to become farmers. It practically says—" Mi- " ners must not keep cattle. They "■ must buy all their milk and butter. " If their claims are not rich enough to " enable them to pay the hundred-and- " one taxes to which they are subject, " and to buy milk and butter, they " must go without, or become de- " ferred-payment settlers. If they " have not capital enough to become *?. settlers they must starve,. or leave "" the.country." The absence of any mention of this subject in the letter is ;a grave omission.

We should have liked 1 to have seen some mention of what the Government propose should be the system -under which future blocks for settlement shall be opened. Since Mr Uolleston has been Minister for Lands the agricultural lease system has received a decided cheek. In fact it is now practically abolished. If justice is ..to-, be done the residents of the interior, that system must be revived. If it is insisted that miners shall have land if they have cattle, its revival is imperative, for this is the only method by which they can do so. There is an entire absence, too, of any indication as to whether the Land Acts are to be amended in the several directions considered necessary, asrej cently pointed out by those who have spoken on the subject. One weak point in this letter we consider to be that all runs of more than 5000 acres in extent shall be leased for ten years. We are reminded again here that land can be taken from a lease without compensasation, but still we are not satisfied. We think the systems in vogue in other Colonies, of letting the runs from year to year, or of letting those which contain land of good quality from year to year, those of second-rate quality for from two to five years, and those of poor quality for ten years, is a much better plan. It would.be more likely to work satisfactorily in the interests of settlement, aud it would

b6. better for lessees. They would, if such a system were in vogue, know what they were possessed of. The possibility of land being taken at any time without compensation would not then be hanging, like the sword of Damocles, over their heads. It would be unwise, too, to have no pastoral deferred payment sections, or leases, under 1000 acres in extent, as seems to be contemplated. The letter, insofar as it goes, is mainly satisfactory. We cannot understand why there was so much reluctance on the part of the Minister to foreshadow it when requested to do so last year in the Assembly. We fail to detect in it evidence of the subject having received unusually careful consideration during the recess. It seems as if the general principles that have been floating through the minds of the Minister and Secretary for years past were roughly registered in some spare moment, and that this letter, .hastily composed, as its incompleteness seems to show, is the outcome. Its. barrenness is- it worst feature. The Minister does not seem to have realised the importance of the matter, and it is, perhaps, as well, seeing that it is possible Mr Rjlleston may remain in office over the time during which the leases must be dealtwith, that he did not personally take the reponsibility of dealing, with the , runs. Were there a Minister in power who recognised the importance of his trust, and who was able to devote his whole time to it, we should be inclined to censure him for not relieving the Board of the work. Under present circumstances it is perhaps as well that the power should remain where it is. The constitution of the Board is bad; but the majority of -its present members command respect and confidence. As the Board's actions for some time have shown a really liberal and wise tendency, and as it has declared its general approval of the principles contained in the letter which we are discussing, we think it w.ould be a change for the worse if it were relieved of the work of dealing with the runs. The work of the branches of the Land League is now much more clearly defined. Their plain duty is to consider how the proposals the letter contains will affect their different districts, and to show, by petition, to the Board, and perhaps the Government, (for the Government must ratify the Board's determinations before they are binding) the best manner in which the lands in which they are interested can be dealt with, in accordance with the principles laid down ; and, if they consider the principles faulty, to make their opinions and reasons known.

In the latest telegraphic summary of English news, an item appears which is of more than ordinary interest to newspaper proprietors and publishers. It is to the effect that a bill has passed the House of Commons to protect newspapers from wanton libel actions, in the exercise of their public functions. Such a thing is badly wanted in New Zealand. Hitherto newspaper proprietors or publishers haue been open to the most unrighteous persecution. The fact- is generally known that the law considers that " the greater the truth, the greater is the libel." Newspapers are supposed, and do, so far as they are able, protect the public, and expose wrongs. But they are so greatly tied down that they cannot do so as fully as they should be able to do. The editor of: a newspaper may see an advertisement in the columns of a contemporary, and he may -know that the advertiser intends to perpetrate a fraud, but he; dare not print such a statement, for if he did so, and if the advertiser proved that he suffered a loss in consequence, the proprietor or publisher of the journal in which the statement ap-; peared would be liable. The editor may discover that a published balancesheet is " cooked," but he dare 'not say so. He may know that someone in a. position of trust is committing, or has committed, some gross act, which may altogether unfit him for his office, and which may cause a loss to the public, yet he must remain silent. If, in the ordinary course of criticism, he oversteps the bounds in the least degree, only to such an extent as would justify a jury in giving a farthing damages, he may be almost ruined. The recent case against the proprietors of the Sydney ' Bulletin ' is an instance. The proprietors exposed the disgraceful and immoral manner in which a public pleasure garden was conducted. The owners of the garden commenced an action, and a shilling or a farthing damages was adjudged. But the simple Court c'os*s of the action are said to have amounted to £2OOO. The public was so satisfied that the paper, in doing what it had done, had performed.a public service, that subscription lists were opened to refund the proprietors the cost of the action. Even in a case where it is ordered that each party shall pay his own costs the unfortunate journalist is put to great expense. If a wealthy man is sharply criticised, it sometimes happens that he institutes proceedings. He does, not mind paying £IOO, if he <3ah : make the owner of some offending," rag." pay the same amount. -Th.6 trcpney is of but little value to the former, j'fwhile, very frequently, the letter can ill afford to spare it, and in many instances has to, mortgage his property", to obtain it. Or if anon-wealthy man is hauled over the coals, it frequently happens that he repairs to the office of some low-class lawyer—a few of whom always exist in the large towns, aud occasionally one is to be found iu the country —and he says, " Now here's a " good chancp. Tou make these fe'- " lows apologise Jp .me, anj get your

" costs out of them. Threaten to " issue a warrant; and, rather than " let it come to Court, they will gi're " me satisfaction, and you will make a "rise.'" As? the law has hitherto been, this course is open to the greatest villian breathing. We think it is only right that some protection should be afforded journalists. It should not be possible for them to be persecuted in such a manner. Considering the education and general ability that journalists as a rule possess, the amount of abuse that they receive and the importance of their functions, it cannot be denied that they are the worst-paid class of men in the community. Too often the alternatives " truculency or ruination " stare the>xn in the face. In justice to them, an-.d to enable them to retain their inde»pendence, they should be protected to a greater extent than they are at present.

A SALUTA.BT lesson is taught applicants for shares in public companies by the decision in the JR.M. Court, Naseby, on the 23rd instant. Persons who apply for shares, and who do not withdraw before allocation is made, are proved to be liable for the a'moiint of the shares. Only one of those who appeared in Court had withdrawn before shares were allotted to him. It "is but right that those who are not honest enough to stand by their word or bond should be made to feel the power of the law. The Flour Mill Company was started to supply a long-felt need, and' the number of those who bound themselves together for the purpose was quite small enough. It was extremely mean for one or two to attempt to withdraw, and leave the burden on the shoulders of those who showed a disposition to honorably fulfil the promises they had made. It is none the more excusable since one or two, at least, of the defaulters were men in good circumstances,- and quite able to pay their calls. The allocation, instead of costing them Is per share, cost them about (ss, without reckoning their lost time. It does not require a very sharp mind to seethe advisability of not allowing the matter to go into Court. As the Directors will, no doubt, if compelled, repeat this process ot collection of calls, shareholders should pay up. It is to be regretted that a rate could not have been struck to build the mill. Everyone, as things are, reaps a benefit from it, whether he has contributed to the cost of its erection or not. That the mill has, already, well answered the purpose for which it was put up no one will deny. The reduction in the price of bread by 2d per loaf, and in th it of flour, etc., by 5s or 6s per bag is equal to an.exceilent dividend. The unsatisfactory part of the thing is, however, that under existing circumstances shareholders and non-shareholders benefit in an equal degree.

Applicants for gold-mining leases liave for some time been in .jtloubt as to whether they were supposed to see to the insertion of a notice of application in the ' New Zealand Gazette.' It is perfectly clear that they have not to do so. . Section|6, Appendix A, of the Mines Act, states that as soon as " the day ot 4 hearing is fixed " the Warden shall forward the ap- " plication to the Governor, who will . . . notify his intention to " grant a lease, and such notification " may be published in the 1 New Zea- " land Gazette," and in the local paper, which, "in the opinion of the " Governor," is best calculated to give it publicity. Schedule His that notification, a copy of which appears in our present issue, commencing "In " conformity with the 37th gection," &c., and according to the form attached to the Act it has to be signed by a " Minister," or someone authorised by him. The Government pays the proprietors of the *' Chronicle' for the insertion of this notice in its columns, and no doubt it arranges with the 'New Zealand Gazette.' The printing of the notice in that publication is plainly a ministerial matter, with which applicants for leases have nothing whatever to do. They have to pay to the Eegistrar, on applying, nothing but the survey and mileage fees. The only advertising for which they have to pay is for the insertion " in the local paper," of the notice of application, commencing "I " or "We hereby apply," &c.