THE New Zealand Times. (PUBLISHED DAILY.) WEDNESDAY, MAY 27, 1885.

New Zealand Times, Volume XLIV, Issue 7487, 27 May 1885, Page 2

THE New Zealand Times. (PUBLISHED DAILY.) WEDNESDAY, MAY 27, 1885.

At the last meeting of the Waste Land Board the consideration of Mr Bunny’s motion—“ That no more land should be offered for cash sale ” was postponed. '(A correspondent, whose letter will be found in another column, attacks this motion on the ground that it tends to land nationalisation. He says :—“ As this would be legislation opposed to human nature, it would not be a success till an operation had been performed on the human brain, and the organ called acquisitiveness extracted from it.” We need not stay to discuss abstract questions relating to land tenure. But whatever may be the merits or demerits of State landlordism, Mr Bunny’s motion is open to a very practical objection, which all can understand, and which all will, we suppose, admit to be fatal. The Legislature has appointed certain methods of dealing with the waste lands, and one of those methods is by parting with the freehold for cash. Any Waste Land Board which passes a resolution affirming that no cash sales of land shall take place within the district, sets itself up against the law, and either takes upon itself the responsibility of legislating, or invites the Minister of Lands to commit himself to a like blunder. In Mr Eolleston’s Land Bill of 1882, as moved by him, there was ho limit fixed to the area which in any district might be dealt with under the perpetual leasing system, and it was pointed out that an unscrupulous Minister might, if he pleased, put a stop to the sale of Crown lands throughout the country, and substitute for it the new leasing system. Mr Eolleston combated that view, but consented to certain amendments which were adopted in Committee, and which imposed limitations .with regard to the leasing. Mr Bunny’s motion would bind the Waste Land Board to a course of action similar to that which it was feared might be illegally taken under Mr EoLLESron’s Bill if it were assented to as it originally stood. The object in view is to pass a resolution which in the Wellington District would completely shelve one of the methods appointed by law for deposing of Crown lands. Supposing every Board in the country were to pass such a resolution, the cash purchase of land from the Crown would be done away with. That would mean practically that the Boards had made a most important amendment in the land laws of the Colony. But neither one Board nor all the Boards combined have the right of legislation. Their plain duty is to fairly administer the law as it exists, and not to limit its operation to suit their peculiar views. The Minister and the Boards have a large discretion, but it is a discretion under the law, not a power to set aside the law. All such general resolutions, having for their object the nullifying of the declared will of the Legislature, are illegal in spirit, whether they relate to land or anything else. If New Zealand is to have land nationalisation, let it be by the voice of the people as expressed through the Legislature, and not by the determination of a body whose sole business is to give effect to the law as it stands. Before concluding, we would draw attention to the latter part of our correspondent’s letter, which deals with certain points in which Mr. Ballanue’s scheme of special settlement appears to need amendment. The views expressed by our correspondent arethose of one who acknowledges that Mr. Ballance’s scheme may do good, and who wishes the removal of defects which may either cause its failure, or lead to mischief in other directions.