Mr Andrew Kinross.

Southland Times, Issue 12036, 28 May 1892, Page 3

Mr Andrew Kinross.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, — In your issue of the 23rd inst. there appeared two letters from Mr Andrew Kinross which I will deal with in [)loho. Mc Kinross attempts to justify his appointment as a valuator because Mr Spence (then Chief Commissioner) proposed it, but this is a very flimsy excuse, for thia reason, that Mr K. acquiesced. Mr K. states that "it was against his interest as a private individual to reduce the price of land, but private interest should not over-ride public duty." I should like to know the extent of Mr Kinross private interest which was overridden in tl c exercise of his public duty ? Or is this parenthetically his way of parading his purity and vanity"; I noticed that Mr Kinross was the author of a letter which appeared in your journal a little while before his reappointment to the Lund Board, a letter in which ho lavished fulsome praise on Mr John McKenzie for his wise administration of the Lands Department. Notwithstanding Mr Kinross' profession of purity and independence I must confess it was transparent to most that his effusion on that occasion was a high bid for re-appoint-ment, and nothing less than obsequiousness. The man who adopts such tactics I hold at a low estimate indeed. In my last letter I omitted to refer to a paragraph contained in Mr Kinross' previous letter wherein he makes it appear that all the available land for settlement was taken off the runs recently let. Such was not the case, but there was reserved from certain runs a quantity, supposed to be sufficient for present requircmenta ; but tliis does not refute or alter my former statement as to the capability or value of the runs let at 2d per acre compared to Linwood runs. Mr McKenzie valued Linwood run at 9d per acre, and upon his basis of valuation the runs recently let by the Government ought not to be let at less than twice and in some cases thrice, that sum. Therefore they should be bringing in a rental of from ls 6d to 2s per acre. In reference to that part of Mr Kinross' letter which refers to your criticism of the School Commissioners, I leave it to you ; but I cannot refrain from expressing my disapprobation of this sneering style which Mr Kinross has adopted. Then he goes on to show that he had not the data to go by, and hence his plea for falling into so many blunders, and states that his " information was gained chiefly from seeing most of the land referred to, from conversations with selectors, and newspaper reports." When Mr Kinross rushes into print and dogmatises he ought to have posted himself on the subject he writes about. This is my dogmatism, and your readers will please accept it as such. Mr Kinross professes to sympathise with the mortgagors of the School Commissioners, and, like too many more, is ready to shed his brother's blood. But what of the cash selectors and the deferred payment selectors uuder the adminstration of the Land Board — men who had worked and struggled hard to keep their engagements with the Government ? In many cases when they could not do so, they, in their anxiety to pay their debts, borrowed money and paid the Government the full price. I ask what consideration have their cases received at the hands of the Government or Land Board ? Echo answereth "None." Then I submit that a law which favours one class (the lame and lazy) at tho expense of the other class of the community is unjust. Take this case : A. purchased his land from the Government at L 3 per acre on deferred payment ; he allowed his payments to fall into arrear and was nearly Ll 10s per acre behind. B. purchased or selectea his land under the same conditions and price as A. B. selected later than A. and took a worse section. B. paid his instalments as they became due, and had hard scraping to do so. The revaluators go round and value A.'s section at Ll 15s per aero and the price is reduced to that sum, and consequently lie gets I clear of all his arrears. B. gets this conso- | lation that the Government consider it expedient to bear down the value of the land he had purchased from them and Jpaid for ; and he is thereby taught a lesson never again to pay the Government what he promised. Such being the treatment meted out to those who purchased land from the Government for cash or on deferred payment, but who had unfortunately paid up. It behoves Mr Kinross to set his own house in order before Ihe goes abroad to rind fault. It would be needless for me to instance cases of erratic reductions, as these are well-known and admitted, and they fully justified your comments. A statement appeared somewhere, I think made by the chairman of the School ! Commissioners, that they had reduced the interest to their mortgagors from 6 to 4%, thus making a reduction for 5 years back and 7 years forward, estimated to be equal to a reduction on the capital value of the land of about 25 per cent. Now, aa I stated previously, it sounds nicely to preach liberalism and to be open-handed in dealing with public property and thereby court popularity as Mr Kinross appears to do, but what of the day of reckoning when the unjust steward shall be called to give an account of his stewardship ? You remember how the unjust steward in the parable called his master's debtors and reduced their respective debts (I presume on similar lines to the revaluation) und was for so doing, praised for his worldly wisdom. Yet he was called the unjust steward, and hence the sequel. Public bodies who are entrusted with public property ought to do their duty to the public and not act the part of the unjust steward as some sections of the community would desire them to do. As an illustration, take the case of the. Railway Commissioners in Victoria. They acceded to nearly every request made by members of Parliament, deputations of all sorts, and they were praised sky-high as facile /rrinceps of railway managers ; but mark the change. They are now suspended from office and charged with mismanagement, extravagance, and all sorts of things. Evidently impelled by political factions and public clamours, they gave way and made merry with their friends, and now their friends turn round and rend them. They were at one time commended for their worldly wisdom, but a change has come over the Bcene. This case will serve as a warning to all our public bodies entrusted with the care and management of public property, not to be cajoled or carried away by various factions, trying to please everybody. Let them do the right and merit will eventually be recognised. This warning ought to apply with double force to our Railway Commissioners and it is well that it should, not, 1 believe, so far as they are concerned, I but in respect of the sneers of ministers and | the ravings and cant of some members of t Parliament and a considerable section of the \ community. — I am, &c, Not Conyin'ckd. 27th May.