THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. SATURDAY, MAY 1, 1880.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XVII, Issue 5758, 1 May 1880, Page 4

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. SATURDAY, MAY 1, 1880.

Thb Waste Lands Board, at its meeting oil Thursday, dealt with more than one subject of interest and importance. Mr. Firth took occasion to disavow the construction placed on remarks recently made by him, which assumed that his inclination was to favour capitalists. It is the penalty he pays for himself being the possessor of so many broad acres that his proclivities are supposed to lean to the class to which he belongs. But no one ought to be liable to a general, large, and vague suspicion of this kind. There ought to be some sufficient reason, some specific proof ; and we are not aware that any fact can ba brought forward to show that, a capitalist himself, Mr. Firth, as a member of the Board, devotes himself specially to their interests. If anyone else had made the remarks , ? to which he gave expression they would not have evoked comment. Mr. ' Firth pays the penalty of territorial greatness, and the balance being so considerably in his favour he ought to be able to bear it with equanimity, and no doubt does so. But, in removing the misapprehensions which his remarks had created, Mr. Firth made others which must be deemed very objectionable *nd very serious, because, as they seem to have received the assent of his colleagues, on the principle that "silence gives consent," they may be taken to indicate the policy of the Board. According to our repdrt Mr. Firth said:— The remarks made at the last meeting on the application to open more land in tho' Raglan district under the homestead system -were in the interest •of ' small settlers themselves. Having already 9000 acres of _homest«nd land there, if they opened more it would only be throwing additional labour into the district, where no facilities wore offered for the location of capitalists. Hiß remarks were not made in the interest of capitalists, but in the interest of the settlers themselves; for it was a wall known fact, that poor men could-not go on land and live on it unless they could procure employment from their richer neighbours, or procure timber which they could sell. And at the conclusion of his remarks he gave his views in this concrete form :— They had a duty to the country to .perform, and that was to see that the lands..were not sold so as to injure.the persons, who take them up, and are of no benefit to the country. .

It is well thkt "Mr. Firth shouldliave-ex?: pressed himself , in theae v explicit terms,| because there can be no doubt as to their ! meaning, doubt that in tha public interests they should receive, an | emphatic expression of diqsent. ' There ia no occasion to question Mr.' Firth's intentions, they are good onthefaco of themj He evidently thinks that what he advocates is right and- the best; thing to do. But it i 3 surprising he should , have failed to perceive -that the line of action he lays down for the guidance of the Board involves an usurpation; that, the claim he advances constitutes a power which it was nevermeant to possess, and bestow on it a function with which Parliament, had never the slightest idea of endowing it. The Board is the alter ego of the Government.- It was instituted to discharge on -the spot, duties which could not bs as efficiently performed in the capital. If anything, its powers are less, its discretion certainly less than the Government would have possessed or exercised ; and yet we find claimed for it a discretion the reverse of that which the Government would have used, and one which is net consonant with soundpolicy. The position assumed by Mx. Firth on behalf of the Board is pernicious in three respects : that it is in effect a usurpation of power; that the Board is not competent to whield it; and that on the ground of public policy it is thoroughly bad and obviously dangerous. Public policy requires'that there should be ,not only an abundance, but a superabundance of land available far settlement, to prevent the possibility of a deficiency. Mr. Firth substitutes for this .that the Board is to limit the quantity, so as to prevent people taking up land to their own injury. We contend that the Board is not entitled to do anything of the kind, that it is not competent or to set up it's judgment in restriction of what any person may choose to do with regard to taking, up iand, 'that people have a right to judge for themselves,—that the. Board is not capable of thinking for them, had no such power conferred upon it, should not be permitted to exercise it, thai; the land law never contemplated it, and that the functions of the Board do not extend further than keeping the market fully supplied with land ; seeing that an adequate price is obtained, and the conditions imposed by the law complied with. Mr. Firth cannot have given sufficient consideration to his opinion— too intent upon the goodness of his object—for, otherwise, he must have perceived that the Board possesses no such discretion as lie desires it should exercise, cannot play wet-niirae to the community, was not intended to be, and is not fit to be, the guide, , philosopher, and friend of the selector. - Most men think that they are the best judges of their own affairs, but Mr. Firth lays down the proposition that the Board shall think for them. Private judgment and personal liberty as regards land are to be superseded by the judgment of the Board. It is to say," "My good fellow, no doubt your intentions are very excellent ; you are enterprising and indusstrious, _ and « possessed of a sanguine disposition ; are honestly convinced that if'you ; get land you will "go on and prosper." It's quite a mistake; you do not know 'anything about it; the Board would be sorry to see you make a blunder, and 'so has thought for you, and decided that you shall not have the facility you require. It seems hard, no doubt', but you ought to be thankful. Rest assured we are acting for your best interests." To which he could rejoin: " I ought to feel extremely flattered by the interest you take in my welfare, and am deeply sensible of the excellence of your intentions and your exalted confidence in your ability to think for me. I have' arrived at years of discretion, and am unaware of anything in the land law, or any other law, that prohibits me from thinking for myself, or authorises you to think for me. I believe I am the best judge of what to do ; and though I do . not expect to make a mistake, and do not want to do so, I hare the right if I like. You know nothing of my means, my information, my intentions, the manner in which I intend to give them effect, or anything else. You may have the power to withhold from me facilities for taking up land ; you have not the right. The law does not give you the power you have determined to exercise. You could not exercise it properly if you possessed it. I concede the benevolence of your intentions towards me ; concede my request that you keep within the duties prescribed to you by law and permit me to retain the right of thinking for myself of which the law has not deprived me and not transferred to you on my account." We have presented the argument in this way, so as to simplify its form, and display more clearly what Mr. Firth really proposes to do, and why it should not be done, and we apprehend if it correctly represents the solid objections to his proposal, the Board, which has always evinced a proper sense of its responsibilities, will allow' it its proper weight, or offer some sufficient- refutation. We have no desire to cavil at its proceedings, on the contrary we think it as a rule discharges its duties iu a manner which entitles it to support and consideration. But we deem that the principle of action recommended it is in excess of its powers, is dangerous, would be fraught with bad effects, and we thus and so strongly take objection to it because we conceive that it should not commit itself to it. Mr. Firth has no other object than to do that which he thinks best, and if we have succeeded in showing that it not only is not that, but something very different, we are entitled to expect from him a candid concurrence with the views we have expressed.