THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES SATURDAY, NOVERMBER 7, 1908. MR M'NAB ON HIS DEFENCE.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 14365, 7 November 1908, Page 8

THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES SATURDAY, NOVERMBER 7, 1908. MR M'NAB ON HIS DEFENCE.

lire Minister of Lhwls clearly felt, when lie fncod the electors at Gore on Thursday night. Inst, that ho had been placed on, his defence. Three years ago when seeking their support as a candidate ho had offered them ample . assurances of his conviction 1 that the optional system of the disposal of th& Crown lands should retained with the important s ition that the right to acquire .the freehold of the land they occupied should he conferred upon all Crown onaTitiS. It was upon his ayowal of his adherence to a. policy of this kind that he sought the confidence of tho Mataura electorate. Thero was abso- ■ y 1,0 lnck of defiuiteness about his pronouncement on the subject. Ho dedared that "in 1902 ho stood as a supporter of the optional system in regard to the disposal of Crown lands, and in regard to land for settlement his opinion liad not changed." What that opinion was he explained at somo length:

. W °ro they going on for all time buy- «■& P iiin g, u P <lebt and difficulty .'What he urged.was that there was noweufaqnt invested in land, and. they , couldkeep it thoro and, at tho samotimo * keep it in a comparatively liquid condition . « they gnvo tho right to purchase the freehold, they would not need to borrow more. What tho tenants paid for tho' purchase of their land tho Government could use to purchase othor land, and they could restrict the aggregation of fcstates, ... Four millions wero now invested, and it was time they gavo the right to acquiro tho freehold, .and did away with thi necessity of borrowing for tho purchase of further estates. . . Of course, if tenant Were' allowed to acquiro'the freehold it should' not■;bo at original values, but at the value of the land to-day, less tlio improvements that the tenants' had put upon it; Mr M'Nab's policy in 1905 was,, it will he seen, ono under which all,' Crown taumts-those holding leases undeir tho Land for Settlements Act'as well as the holders under the original Land Act —would bo granted the option of. acquiring the fee simple, and the purchase money so received by the Government would constitute a fund to be utilised for the purchase of estates Lr subdivision for closer settlement- so that the necessity for borrowing for this 'purpose might be avoided. On the faith, of his; adherence to this policy was re-elected'to the representation of •MatflUra.. In a few months' time he accepted a place in the Government rif Minister qf Lands, and, as.one. of tho first questions to which the Government, as reconstituted, directed its attention was that of land legislation, Mr M'Nab Was afforded the.opportunity of insli-' tuting proposals to give effect to tho views enuueiatod by him and endorsed by the electors. In what way, hoWover, did he furnish proof of the depthi of' the convictions he expressed? He .brought down legislation, which, he threatened, was to be passed.unless the country was ,to be deprived of his services as Minister of Lands, that involved, if not a distinct reversal of the .policy he had advocated on. the platform, at anyrate a.n absolute,. abandonment of its cardinal features. For Ins electioneering proposal, to give a right of puTchaee to all Crow tenants was substituted a proposal for; a pom. plete cessation, of tho sale of Crown landsi In this respect Mr M'NaV executed a, volte face which' was only preserved from being comple.te' by' the reservation that the holders' of lenses of ordinary Crowti. 'lands might; if they liked to surrender their leases, take their chance of buying the' freehold at auction. 1 But as no Crown tenant would ever ihavo been likely to avail himself of such a precarious method of securing tho freehokk-sinoo to'do so would expose him to the risk of having to compete at tho auctkm ( with men of longer purses and greater resources than himself, audi consequently expose him to. the risk of losing his land altogether, —the reservation might just as well hav,e been omitted. But this option was I withhold from the large class of .Crown tenantry which is composed of those occupying settlement lands, tlie proposed legislation of 1906 really, represented, therefore, an abject betrayal of the principles which Mr M'Nab'advocated in 1905. And although Mr'M'Nab hastily withdrew theso proposals .when it was suspected that the country would not submit to them, he is rightly judged upon them, especially when it is remembered' that ho spent the greater part, of the Mowing recess, in the vain effort to break down the opposition to them'.' The legislation of 1907 presented various points' of difference from the proposals of the previous year, and was a groat improvement upon them, but, iii supporting it, Mr M'Nnb still resisted the policy he had hiniself advocated as'a private member. It is true that a certain,, right is bestowed upon one section of Crown tenants to acquiro tho freehold. But it is upon terms which, unless thoro is to 'be a heavy' and general fall in land values, forbid the possibility that there will be any largo acceptance of them. Moreover,, once more the option.of purchase is withheld from the holders of leases under-the Land for Settlements Act. And, though tho provision of the Bill-of 1906 for tlie discontinuance of.the ! snlo of Crown land was omitted froui tlie legislation of last year, Mr M'Nab' admits • that one and a-half million acres have, under the National Endowment-' Act, been reserved from alienation that might otherwise, have fieon disposed of on freehold conditions. The spirit of the laud laws, for the passage of which Mr M'Nab, the freeholder of 1905,; is responsible, is, indeed, strongly' antifreehold. " The distinguishing features of th© present leasehold system,", it is said in the Official Year Book, ", involve tho principle of State ownership of the soil, with a tenant right to- recurrent terms of lease 'by the occupier"; and ' this sentence expresses not. inaptly tho principle which runs through the/legislation on the subject. Mr M'Nab,, defends his tergiversation by feebly pleading that it was not to be supposed that the policy of the Ward Government in ' connection with the lands of tho country was to bo-abjo-; lutaly identical with overy point advocated by the individual member who became Minister of Lands. Of course ib was not. It must bo recognised bv every reasonable doctor that the de\ cision of the Cabinet upon a question constitutes a' composite judgment in. which due weight is given to the personal- opinion of every individual, mem- '

uev of the Government. Necessarily, however, the views of tho Minister of Lands • carry a special authority in respect of land legislation, just as those of tho Minister of Finance do' in regard to financial anil' those of the Minister of Mines in connection with proposals affecting the mining law.s. And tho community is at least entitled to expect that a Minister who attaches any importance to principles shall not surrender the bulk of the convictions he has expressed jmd shall he no party to the enactment c>f legislation that is directly opposed to the views lie 3ias advocated. Mr M'Nab clutches desperately at a "straw when he compares his own position, in the Cabinet in respect of land legislation with that of Mr Millar in respect of labour legislation. "Was it suggested,", he nsks, '"that the policy of the Ward Administration in connection with Labour was identical with the position taken up on that question by the Hon. Mr Millar when ho was standing for tho House?" We shall not ourselves answer that question. It were better answered by Mr Millar himself, and his reply to it" was given in the House last session, and again in the Garrison Hall a few nights ago, when he quoted evidence that was given by him before the Sweating Commission in 1890 in." order to show that tlw provisions contained in his Labour legislation are consistent with the views ho expressed before ever ho became a member of .Parliament. Mr Millar fails Mr M'Nab, therefore, as a witness, -and tho indictment against the latter that, as Minister.of Lands, he deserted the principles he upheld as a private member and consequently betrayed the settlors who supported him stands substantially unchallenged.