THE HUNDREDS ACT.

Otago Witness, Issue 931, 2 October 1869, Page 1

THE HUNDREDS ACT.

i. The bitter discussion which has been carried on throughout the province for sometime paston the subject ofthe Otago Hundreds Regulation Act, has proved a painful illustration of the inconveniences attending legislation in New Zealand. The people are systematically kept in the dark with regard to every measure introduced into the General Assembly; and usually it is not until jifome time after the measures introduced have become . law, that the people generally are placed in a position to understand them. In a province so remote from the seat of legislation as Otago, the absence of necessary information on political questions is a perpetual source of mischief. In the midst of ignorance, misapprehensions of all kinds must necessarily abound. And every stage of the discussion on this Act has shown that many who undertook to expound it were under the influence of grave misapprehensions. Some authorities actually mistook an Act to regulate the levy of assessment in Hundreds for an Act to regulate the declaration of ! Hundreds. Such a result is not to be wondered at, when we recollect that the means of forming a satisfactory opinion were not within reach of our local disputants. Before such an opinion could be formed, it was essentially necessary that the history of the Act from its inception, as well aa the data on which it was based, should be carefully kept in view. It was necessary in the first place to recollect that a Commission had been appointed by the late General Government — on the petition of some Clutha settlers — to enquire into the administiution ofthe Waste Lands in Otago, with a view to the exposure and correction of alleged abuses in that administration ; that the Commissioners so appointed had travelled through tho province, collected a large amount of evidence, | and drawn up an elaborate Roport \ that j this Report had been considered by the Waste Lands Committee of the Assembly ; that certain resolutions had thereupon been passed by tho Committeoj that a Bill had been prepared in accordance with those resolutions by tho Attorney-General, introduced into tho House by tho present Government, supported by nearly all tho Otago members, and rapidly passed through both branches of tho Legislature In tho second placo, it was necessary to giva duo woight to tho Report of tho Commissioners, nnd to tho ovidenco on which it was bnsed. But clearly neither tho Report nor tho evidence had boon seen by nine-tenths of those who in hasty and violent languago gwvo expression to their opinions. With scarcely an exception, neither the one nor the other linn ever boon referred to in tho courso of tho diacutwion. Tho provisions of tho Act havo been argued and re-argued ; but nothing has boon said about tho Report which gavo rise to tho Act, and nothing about tho ovidenco which gave riso to tho Report This is not tho umml process of argument in political dincuaaioiui. Tn reviewing special legislation of whatever kind, it ia absurd to ignore tho labours of those who havo boon specially deputed to deal with tho matter umlor awouwion. It nhould be borno in mind that when the Legislature dolegatei ita powon, uit wero, for tho purpoM of

making formal and exact enquiry into a certain matter with a view to legislation, the opinions formed by its delegates are usually adopted by it. They are, in fact, primarily responsible for the subsequent legislation. The functions entrusted to them are judicial. They are appointed to hear evidence on both sides of the question — evidence which cannot be submitted to the Legislature itself — and to determine the points at issue in accordance with the weight of evidence. It follows that no accurate opinion can be formed with respect to an Act passed after such enquiry has been made, unless the results of that enquiry are first considered. No one can be in a position to speak authoritatively about the Act, who has not duly digested the material on which it is based. The Hundreds Regulation Act is a case peculiarly in point.

On those who undertake to pronounce this Act unjust and impolitic, rests the burden of showing that the Report which it carries into effect is partial in design, illogical in argument, and unsubstantiated by proof. None hitherto have ventured to attackit. Ithas indeed been stigmatised as a piece of special pleading, butno attempt has been made to show in what the special pleading consists. If that be the true character of the Report, it would be a very easy matter to show it ; and the shortest way to damage the character ofthe Act wotild be to damage the character of the Report. The test of the Report is, not the dogmatic assertions of prejudiced persons, but the evidence attached to it. If the Commissioners have so grossly betrayed their trust as to substitute a series of special pleas for an honest judgment, by all means let their breach of trust be exposed at once. They have furnished the means of ascertaining the nature of their Report, in the shape of a hundred pages of evidence attached to it. This evidence may be readily sifted. It is not enveloped in verbiage, nor encumbered by technicalities. It is the emphatic language of miners, small settlers, and runholders narrating their grievances. No attempt has beon made to bring the evidence of one class prominently forward, and to throw that of another class into the background. There is no reason to suspect that evidence has been suppressed on one side, and coloured on the other. There is every appearance of judicial impartiality in the conduct of the examination. The Commissioners sat to hear evidence in Tuupeka, Roxburgh, Clyde and Alexandra, Cromwell, Queenstown, Blacks and Naseby, Oamaru, and Dunedin. The ovidence they have recorded embraces the whole quesjtion in its many and complicated bearings. Tho Report appears to us a strictly judicial document. It sums up tho ovidenco concisely and impartially. It holds tho balance evenly between tho conflicting interests it deals with. Ita conclusions aro obviously prompted I by a desire to promote tho interests of tho province ; to do justice to all parties ; and not more to protect capital inveatod in runs, than to open up tho country for settlement by facilitating tho acquisition of land. To denounce a laborious and conscientious summary of this kind as *a pieco of special pleading,' is to bo guilty of injustice toward* mon who descrvo well of tho country. Whothor tho Act now under discussion is destined to becomo a final settlement of tho Land question or not, the labours of tho Coimnis»ioners will render good uervico to tho community as long as that question continues to disturb ita peace. Tim result will prove a safeguard against tho perpetration of injustico towardu any class, by enlightening nien'a minds as to tho real merits of tho case, and enabling them to uoe beyond tho narrow circle of their individual interests. The mi*apprehon»ionf whioh have prevailed with regtrd to the Act oriio

entirely from- the« circumstance .that little or no attention has been* paid, to, the Import and evidence on. which it .is founded. "We propose todealin^tuture issues with the various questions whichhave'been brought under discussion. 'To place the subject on its proper footing, it is an indispensable preliminary that the character and effect of the documents we have referred to should be understood.

' n« ! Among the arguments urged by the opponents of the Hundreds Regulation Act, the first in order is-r-that the Act is an encroachment on the powers and privileges of the Provincial Council. It is argued that all legislation affecting the lands of Otago should be framed in strict accordance with the expressed opinions of that body; that the General Assembly, in fact, should content itself with carrying out whatever policy may be indicated by the Council. It is also argued that the Act, by transferring the administrative powers of the Provincial to the General Government with respeot to the declaration of Hundreds, involves * a deadly blow' to provincial institutions. A powerful appeal to the sympathies of _ provincialists has been made in this direction; but no responsive echo has yet been heard. Possibly it might have been otherwise had the Act been introduced by the Stafford Government. It -would then have been brought forward as another proof of their centralising tendencies; the unpopularity of that Government would have been brought to bear against the Act : and it would not have been an easy matter to show that the merits of the Act are really not affected by thequestion of centralism. Mr Stafford, however, is no longer in power, and the fears of those who trembled for the integrity of provincial institutions have been set at test, The obnoxious Act has been introduced by Mr Fox and his party, the acknowledged champions of provincialism. No one will presume to doubt the sincerity of their regard for the constitutional rights of the provinces. To suppose that— in the midat of their solemn professions on this subject— they are capable of aiming a 'deadly blow' at provincial institutions, is to Buppose them capable of unblushing political treachery. The confidence reposed in them by provincialista probably accounts for the failure of the cry raiaed by some opponents of the Hundreds Act, on the ground of its anti-provincial character. It may fairly be asked whether the Fox Government would have held themselves responsible for an Act calculated to create great dissatisfaction in Otago on purely provincial grounds. We doubt whether they would have ventured to incur the political odium winch suoh a step would have entailed, especially at a time when the support rendered by Otago in the Assembly was the mainstay of their political existence. Tho question at issue had nothing to do with their Ministerial policy. Ihey could not afford to throw away a fraction of their popularity on a purely provincial matter. Had tho Act appeared to them an unjustifiable invasion of the rights and privileges of tho Provincial Council of Otago, it is tolerably certain that they would not have supported it. That the Provincial Council has any legal or prcscriptivo right either to initiate or to control tho land legislation of the colony, is an abortion which cannot bo proved. It is a very different thing to say that tho land legislation of the colony has in Rome instances moved in tho direction indicated by* tho Provincial Council. The General Asoombly has never hesitated to endorse tho views of tho local Legislatures, whenover it has thought fit to do po But it ia absurd to mistake custom for law, or to argue that concession is equivalent to prerogative. Tho Iroviirial Councils can advance no claim to prerogative. Whatever powers and privileges they aro ontitlod to in the way of logwlation, woro legally defined at tho timo of thoir creation. If tho lottw of tho law ia to he otilled m» evidence, ft glance at the Constitution Aot to sufficient to show the

precise position -wnicK th|e< provincialLegislatures' occupy. i A;ny -of /> our readers who niay be afflicted' with doubts on this matter may remove thenv at once. By -referring to clauses 18 j and 19, he will find that the action of .the Provincial Councils is restricted! within certain clearly defined limits ; to'clause 27, that Bills passed by the Councils cannot be brought into operation without the assent of the Governor; to clause 29, that any such Bills may be disallowed by the Governor, and that thereupon they shall become null and void ; to clause 53, that the controlling and superseding power of the ; General Assembly is explicitly af-; firmed, and that provincial ordinances j inconsistent with Acts of the Assembly ] are declared to be of no effect;! to clauses 62 and 66, that the Waste \ Lands of the Crown are practically affirmed to be colonial, and not provincial, property ; and to clause 72, that the power of legislation with respect to the Waste Lands is expressly declared j to reside with the General Assembly, j It was clearly the intent of the Constitution that the provincial Legislatures should be rendered subordinate to the colonial Legislature. To claim for the former any powers of control, direction, restriction, or limitation in the matter of land legislation, is to claim powers wholly unknown to the Constitution. Many, however, who are not disposed to claim any ' prerogative' for the Provincial Council, so far as legislation is concerned, may urge that the administration of the land laws has hitherto been left in its hands, and that it has been wrongfully deprived of that power by the Hundreds Act. Provincial jealousy is likely enough, we admit, to take offence at a law which submits the declaration of a. Hundred to the judgment of two officers of the General Government. But provincial jealousy should not blind us to the fact that whatever administrative power was possessed by the Counoil before this Act cameinto operation, is still possessed by it. All that the Council could do at any time was to recommend the declaration of certain Hundreds. It is not deprived of this power of recommendation now. As an additional precaution, the Acb provides that after such recommendations have been made and transmitted to the General Government, one or more officers shall be appointed to ascertain whether there is any necessity for the desired Hundreds. The powers of the Council are not restricted by that provision. No Hundred will be declared in future without the recommendation of the Council. It may possibly happen that its recommendations may in some instances be set aside after due enquiry has been made : but it does not followthat they will be systematically set aside. On the contrary, the probability is that they will be carried out even more promptly than has hitherto been the case. The Act is peremptory in requiring that, after application has been made for a Hundred, and the officers of the General Government have reported in tovonr of it, the Hundred shall bo proclaimed within six months thereafter. There ia no room for evasion — tho proclamation must follow tho report, tt acems to bo taken for granted in sonio quarters thut tho nominees of tho General Government must necessarily bo opposed to tho proclamation of Hundreds. As it is understood that tho nominees will be appointed from othor provinces, there in no reasonable ground for any suspicion of t ho kind. Tho presumption, indeed, is rather tho othor way. In both these ; respects, therefore, of administration «md legislation, wo rco no reason to condomn tho Hundreds Act ns an unconstitutional interference with tho privileges of tho Provincial Council. Tho General Assembly has simply asserted tho powers which belonged to it from tho first, and which nothing in tho shape of provincial prerogative can either abrogate or restrict.