The Timaru Herald. TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 1899.

Timaru Herald, Volume LV, Issue 5775, 19 September 1893, Page 2

The Timaru Herald. TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 1899.

In our issue of yesterday there was a telegram which atated that tbe Chief Justice had dismissed au appeal brought by the Attorney General and tbe Com miesioner of Crown Lands for the Taranaki district, ugainst the decision of the Laud Board m an alleged case of dummyiem. Tbe chsc m ita later development was a very peculiar one, and iv of interest throughout the colony because ib throws a strong light on the ideas which Mr Me KeDzie, the Minister of Lands, entertaiss as to his proper relations with public bodieß m tbe exercise of their statutory functions. Kecently we had occasion to comment on his conduct towards the Mackenzie County C^oncil and now we find him interfering with the Taranaki Land Board m an equally unjustifiable manner. In tbe former case he went boldly against tbe law, and ordered the Commissioner of Crown Lands m Christcburch to keep back certain revenue, the property of the County Council. la the latter ease, he found it impossible to break tbe law m a barefaced manner, because if he had directly set aside the decision of tbe Taranaki Ltnd Board, the person whose rights were interfered with would have had a ' legal remedy against the Govern* ' ment and possibly against Mr McKenzie ' himself. He had, therefore, to try and I enlist the law on his side, and his ' attempt, iv conjunction with the At. 1 torney-General, haß proved a ludicrous failure. The cage was firat referred to t m tbe newspapers on the 9th of this i month. It had been argued m Banco t on the previous day before Efis Honour 6 tbe Chief Justice, on an appeal by the], Attorney- General and the Commissioner . c of Crowr* Lands for Taranaki. We B

scapitulate the facts as they were stated t the time. A Mrs Mary R. Weber, f Woodville, bad been a successfal pplicant for a section disposed of inder the perpetual lease syetem. It ma alleged that she had not resided on be land, and that the money for he improvements had been provided by . resident m Hawke's Bay. Complaint >eing made to the Board, they held an nquiry into the supposed dam my ism, md after hearing the evidence, gave Mrs Weber the benefit of the doubt and lid not forfeit the land. It is unnecessary for the purposes of our article to say more on that part of the case. We aave the facts, firstly, of a complaint ; secondly, of an enquiry by a competent tribunal ; and, thirdly, the judicial decision of that tribunal, namely, an acquittal of the defendant. In proof of the Land Board being a competent tribunal to hear and determine the case, it is only necessary to refer generally to the elaborate provisions of the Land Act, 1892, and to quote the first few words of section 49, j which are aa follows : — " Where a lease or license has been granted to hold land on any system subject to the fulfilment of certain termß and conditions, the Land Board shall be the sole judges whether such conditions have been com plied with, etc." Then come the detailed provisions for holding enquiries, taking evidence on oat n, and conferring powers of forfeiture where the Board shall adjudge the accused party to be guilty. The tribunal is strictly a judicial one, sitting to hear and determine ; and the Commissioner of Crown Lands is ex offioio chairman of the Land Board. The Act aUo contains provisions for an appeal to the Supreme Court by an aggrieved party. For instance, if the Taranaki Land Board bad found this Mrs Weber guilty of dummyism and had forfeited her land, she could, after complying with certain conditions, have had the decision reviewed by a Judge of the Supreme Court. But, as we have said, the Board practically acquitted her — gave her the benefit of the doubt — or m other words did not consider that the evidence against her was strong enough to warrant a conviction. Now couiee the curious part of the case, and Mi McKenzie's meddling band is clearlj visible. He chafes at the escape of a person whom he would have convicted without hesitation and turned off bei section. It seems to be sufficient foi him that a person should be suspected of dummyism m order that a conviction should take place. And so m tbiß case he set the Commissioner of Crowe Lands m motion to appeal to th< Snpreme Court, the Attorney General being induced to undertake the argu ment. But mark the essential absurdity of the proceeding. The appellant, the Commissioner of Crown Lands, is c member of the tribunal which tried the case an.d acquitted the defendant. Foi all that we know to the contrary h« concurred m the decision, and moßl assuredly he never would have gone tc the Supreme Court on such a fool's errand unless he bad received inatruc tions from the Minister of Lands The result might have been confidentlj predicted, and we are greatly surprised that the Attorney-General consented tc go into Court with such a brief. The Chief Justice held that a member of the Land Board could not appeal against what was virtually his own decision, Thua Mra Weber retains her section and the Minister of Lands is foiled ir his attempt to twist the law to suit hit policy. We do not doubt his genuim wish to put down dutnmyisra, and we have as strong a dislike to it as he has But we have a great respect for the law, and we think it far better and safei that an occasional dummy should es. cape than that irregular methods tc secure conviction should be resorted to. We have no reason for doubting the justness of the decision arrived at by the Land Board of Taranaki ; and the Minister of Lands, recognising theii lawful authority, and giving them credit for intelligence and impartiality, should have aocepted their finding and left Mre Weber m peace. But Mr McKenzie, like some of his colleagues — notably the Premier — cannot understand the prin. ciple which underlies such a course ol action. They are puffed up with a sense of their own importance, and are nol content with their legitimate position under the constitution. They are con« tinually doing illegal things or thingf which are at variance with the spirit ol the law which they, above all men m the community, should respect. This socalled Liberal Administration is more autocratic and arbitrary than any that has preceded it. The surest way tc preserve liberty is to obey the law, but Messrs Seddon, McKenzie and Co., both m great things aud small, too often treat it with contempt, preferrinc* to be v luw nnto themselves, and apparently believing that " Ministers of the Crown," as they delight m calling themselves, have a right to do just what they please, and m the manner which best suits their own fancy.