HONOUR TO WHOM HONOUR IS DUE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XVI, Issue 5499, 2 July 1879, Page 6

HONOUR TO WHOM HONOUR IS DUE.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —In yonr local this morning on the settlement of the Meurant claim, you mention Mr. H. Carleton as having " fought the widow's battles in the Assembly and out of it," but say nothing of Mr. W. Swanson, who has done so much work to get it settled. It is well known that Mr. Carleton used the case as a weapon with which to attack the Government when he was o: the Opposition, but was entirely Bilent on the subject when his party were in power. Mr. Swanson, on the contrary, has untiringly brought the matter forward session after session, careless whether his own party or opponents were in power, and striven for a settlement from the highest motives and without .hope of reward. From a general point of view, Mr. Swanson is entitled to the greatest credit for having thus been the principal means of freeing the colony from the standing disgrace of this unsettled claim. It seems incredible, in a Christian land, that though in 1873, the House resolved to settle the claim ; in 1875, a Court appointed by Government awarded, after having put the estate to considerable legal expense, the sum of £20SS 15s 3dto be paid by Government; and in 1579 the money still unpaid and re-voted in Parliament, not one penny has yet reached the hands of those entitled to it. Lest those unacquainted with the facts should think an undue liberality has been exercised in the above-named award, I may mention that the amount is compensation for 14 acres of laud at Newmarket, facing the main road. This land was given to Mrs. Meurant as a marriageportion, but was wrongfully taken and sold by a Government of some 30 years ago. In view of the present value of this piece of land, the award of £208S cannot be said to have been a liberal one. —I am, &c., Karai?a. rWe agree with our correspondent on all points.—Ed.] " SOMETHING WRONG SOMEWHERE." TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —•Being at the compensation "claim, Maxwell's, held last Friday, Supreme Court, I am amused at the position now taken by valuation experts. A writer, " Casuist," in yours, June 19th, 1879, says : "Something is wiong somewhere." Four valuers, all experts, have now arrived at; that expertness in the art of valuing that £100 exactly per acre is the correct sum. Having been taught somewhat in alligation—total and partial—in Walkingame's arithmetic, and having some of a jury locked up, plan, viz., £150 x 120 x 70x Go=4oo-f 4=£loo. That the present system has "something wrong somewhere,'' I agree with " Casuist." When I find a piece of land which cannot be ploughed, sowed, or mowed, called a farm, the sooner the Bystem is altered, the better. —I am, &c., Another Casuist.