THE WASTE LANDS BOARD AND USURPATION.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XVII, Issue 5760, 4 May 1880, Page 6

THE WASTE LANDS BOARD AND USURPATION.

TO THE EDITOR. Sib, —In your leader of to-day commenting on the proceedings of the Waste Lands Board at its last meeting, yon say that '' The line of action Mr. Firth, laid down for the guidance of the Board involves ail usurpation ; that the claim he advances constitutes a power which it was never meant to possess, and bestows on it a function with which Parliament had never the slightest idea of endowing it. That the Board is not competent to wield it, and that on the ground of public policy it is thoroughly bad and obviously dangerous." This is the indictment, and the remarks with which you accompany it are so outspoken, yet courteous, that you are entitled to a reply. Your indictment is based upon the remarks made by me, and to which, as you have inadvertently omitted two or three sentences necessary for rightly understanding the position I took up, I add to your quotation of what I said, which will then rnn as follows, quoting from your own report:—"Land had always been placed within reach of the public on immediate payment, deferred payment, and on the homestead system. The

remarks made at the list meeting oa the application to open more land in the Ragltn district under tho homestead system were in the interest of small settlers themselves. Having already '000O 1 acres of homestead laud there, if they~openel more it would only be throwingadditional labour into thedistrict, where no facilities were offered for the location of capitalists. His remarks were not made in the interest of capitalists, but in the interest of the setUers themselves; for it was a well known fact that poor men CJuld not go on land and live on it unless they could procure employment from, their richer neighbours, or procure timber which they could sell. Every facility had been placed by the Board in the way of those who desired to acquire land. The Board had never obstructed them; but at the same time 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." I entirely fail to see how such a line of policy can be deemed ''an usurpation," and I am quite prepared to leave the i i verdict at this point to the moderation, good | lense, and love of fair play, which are characteristic of the great majority of f*ery community of Bat order that the pubi c may have farther evidence, that neither in word nor deed has the Waste Lands Board usurped any function not authorised by law, and that it has not departed from even the spirit and intention of the Act, X may state that clause 4S, Wastfc Lands Act, 1877, rans as follows :— " Xt stall be lawful for the Board to withdraw from sale any land, the sale of which it may appear to the Board would bs prejudicial 11 the public interest, notwithstanding that application may have been made to purchase the same."

Again ctaise 52 enacts that " The Governor may set apart for sale on deferred payments such blocks or allotments as may be recommended by aay Land Board." With, reference to Homestead Lands, Clause 2, Appendix A, Act 1577, eaactsjfcbat "It shall be lawful for the Board, with the assent of the Governor, to set apart blocks of la&d to b- opened for occupation without payment, bnt subject to the conditions as to cultivation and residence hereinafter set forth, herein called the ' homestead system.'" Now, with regard to setting apart lands nnler the " homestead system" for the presumed neglect of which you so strongly denounce the Board, —what has the Board done ? It has set apart 109,000 acres under the homestead system, of which 40,000 acres have been applied for during the last four and a-half years to date, leaving 69.000 acres at present open for selection. From the foregoing citations and facts, the pnblio will be able to form its own conclusions whether or not the Waste Lands Board can be justly charged with any usurpation of power, or with not having provided an abundance, nay, even a "superabundance," o£ land for homestead settlement. Ido not think anything more need be said by me, and it only remains for me to thank you for your courteous criticism, and to express the hope that I may have succeeded in removing from your mind a misapprehension under which I venture to think yoi laboured with reference to the powers sad action of the Waste Lands Board in the matter of setting apart hinds for selection under the homestead system.— I am, fix, J. C. Firth. Aucklind, Ist May, ISSO.

[The cily point in Mr. Firth's letter which in any ny touches the remarks from which he dieseia is that comprised in clause 4S of theWa;:e Lands Act, 1577 :—"lt shall be lawful :;r the Board to withdraw from sale any lanl, the sale of which it may appear to the Boari would be prejudicial to the public interest, notwithstanding that application may hs'e been made to purchase the same." Mr. Ei'h gave as his reason for withholding land tiit persons might fail in. their objects, might not find capitalists to employ them. Does :e contend that the word "public," in the clnae he quotes, means the guardianship of th; private interests he recommends the Board to exercise ? He must know it is catible of no such interpretation ; and our riaarks, therefore, remain unanswered. The cause has not the most remote application to our continents. The other portions of the letter require no further remark than that they allude to matters to which we made no reference whatever. Mr. Firth a.*ks the YYiste Lands Board to think for the public, instead of allowing them, '-o think for themselves. When he shows that this power has been bestowed, on it, or that it is fit it should possess if, then we shall be answered. That he has yet to do.—Ed.]