THE Wairarapa Age MORNING DAILY. TUESDAY, JANUARY 29, 1907. THE CHANGE OF FRONT.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXIX, Issue 8344, 29 January 1907, Page 4

THE Wairarapa Age MORNING DAILY. TUESDAY, JANUARY 29, 1907. THE CHANGE OF FRONT.

We have repeatedly pointed out that the under-lying principle of Mr McNab's Land Bill was that of land j nationalisation. The Minister foxLands has, of course, never explained this to the various audiences which he has addressed, and therefore, his statements in explanation of his Bill, when touching upon the land tenure question, amounted to the most palpable sophistry, and despite the Ministerial "explanations" it is evident that the people of this country are awakening to the true inwardness of the proposed measure, so far as it relates to land tenure. So evident, indeed, has this fact become that it is now quite clear that the Government have decided to "change their front" in regard to the Land Bill. Where are the loud protestations of determination to stand or fall by the Land Bill made but a few weeks ago? Where are the men who cared neither for emolument nor office, but simply for the carrying through of a measure that was only right and just? Where indeed! Speaking in Auckland, on Saturday last, the Premier stated that the endowment proposals would be brought forward as a separate measure, apart from the question of land tenures. There was, also, much more that Sir Joseph Ward said, but there are only two statements to which we wish to allude briefly in this article. The one we have already mentioned, and the other statement is this: — "Let me say," said Sir Joseph, "that there is not a line in the Bill whioh would give power to the Government to take away one acre of freehold." We are surprised that the Premier

should have repeated Mr McNab's sophistry. There is certainly not a line in the Bill to "give power to the Government to take away one acre of freehold," and no Government, composed of any individuals residing outside a- lunatic asylum, would dare to make a proposal in the direction of wresting the freehold tenure from the people of this country, who at present enjoy it. The Government who made such a suggestion would be just as sane as an administration who might propose to compel all land occupiers who are not leaseholders to leave the colony. All that any Bill might do in the direction of land nationalisation Mr McNab's Bill proposed to do (viz.), to nationalise all waste Crown lands, and it made no provision for Crown tenants holding land under the lease-in-per-petuity, to acquire the freehold—no not on any terms whatever! We are astonished that Sir Joseph Ward should, even in a tight corner, have fallen back upon the utterly weak sophism of his colleague, the Minister for Lands. But the still more astonishing statement which the Premier made —and we presume that the right honourable gentleman has been correctly reported—was his declaration that the House would be given an opportunity of considering the endowment proposals, apart from the "land tenure question." Sir Joseph Ward may be a genius of an entirely unprecedented character in colonial politics, but he cannot perform impossibilities, and it seems to us that his declared intention of allowing the House an opportunity of considering the endowment proposals, apart from the land tenure question, would be equal to his stating that the Government intended to allow the House an opportunity of performing an impossibility. Such an intention on the part of the Premier is, of course, very generous indeed, and will be greatly appreciated by all the members, and especially by the country members, who have laid in "a bed of roses" ever since the Land Bill was introduced. In conclusion, we would remark that so far as the mangled Land Bill is concerned it seems that the 66 years renewable lease proposal is to be discarded. When Mr McNab spoke recently in Carterton he said he would not make a fighting speech as the time for fighting had not arrived. In view of Sir Joseph Ward's utterance on Saturday last Mr McNab's meaning is now perfectly clear —it was the time for running away that was arriving, and, canny Scot that he is, he saw it far off.

ROADING IN THE BOROUGH. The suggestion made recently to the Masterton Borough Council by Mr H. C. Robinson anent roading private estates within the Borough certainly seems to be worthy of more consideration than that given to it by the Council. In the desultory discussion that followed it was not shown by any of the Councillors who opposed it why the suggestion should not be adopted, and, on the other hand, Mr Robinson brought forward several arguments in favour of his. proposition. It is clearly the duty of the Council to do all within its power to promote closer settlement within the Borough, and any proposal which it is urged operates in that direction, should be very carefully considered by them. It is, 'also, the obvious duty of the Council to protect Borough property holders so far as it can equitably do so. On°this plea, too, it may be said that the Council might have extended more consideration than they did to the proposal referred to. 'We do not say that the Council have not some solid reason for declining to view favourably the suggestion, but that they should have made it clear why they refused. For the benefit of our readers it is just as well to summarise the' matter to which we allude. It is proposed to road a certain estate within the Borough, according of course, to the conditions laid down by the Borough Council, and the proposal is that the necessary money be raised by way of loan and that a special rate to pay interest and sinking fund in connection with such loan be struck over the area affected. The proposal is not a new one, and the Council have the legal authority to comply with the suggestion under j the Municipal Corporations Act, 1900. Are the Council going to adopt the attitude that they will never take action in such a matter and in such a way as the law allows, or are they going to accede to the request of one person, and not to that of another? The Council should be careful in this matter, because they are going to establish a precedent, of an impor- j tant character. We may take it that the Legislature was well advised when it gave municipal corI porations the power to which we refer, and if the Masterton Borough Council want an instance of that power having been exercised, and exercised to advantage, we would point to Carterton, which Borough has been greatly improved by the construction of certain roads under the authority it derives from the Legislature of the country. There are certainly reasons why the Masterton Borough Council should do likewise, but,, before we can pass judgment upon the decision of the Council in regard to the proposal, it is cex'tainly necessary that we should know the ground upon which the Council bases its objection.