The Ashburton Guardian. Magna Est Veritas et Prevalebit. TUESDAY, JULY 31, 1883. The Land Acts Amendment Bill.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume IV, Issue 1009, 31 July 1883, Page 2

The Ashburton Guardian. Magna Est Veritas et Prevalebit. TUESDAY, JULY 31, 1883. The Land Acts Amendment Bill.

The most difficult question which the practical politician has to deal with is the proper administration of the land. We have on the one hand political theorists who argue that the soil belongs to the people, and should therefore be vested in the State for their benefit, and on the other side we have men who believe that the English system of a landed aristocracy is a divine institution which should not be interfered with on any account. This latter class, however, is not numerous even in older countries than New Zealand, while here it is unknown. The nationalisation of the land, as it is understood by those extremists who look upon Henry George as the apostle of a new faith, finds favor only with colonial politicians whose ideas on such questions are simply founded on sentiment. Drastic reformers of this kind would like to do away with private ownership altogether, by means of wholesale confiscation; but fortunately the common sense of the majority is a wholesome check upon their desires. But impracticable as are the suggestions of this school, the principle underlying the theory they advocate is unquestionably just. In a new country like this, we have the tremendous advantage of being able to benefit from the experience of older communities. We can, for example, see that in Great Britain, the richest country in the world, more abject poverty exists than in any other part of the globe. It is doubtful whether, as certain political economists would have us believe, this state of things is entirely due to vicious land laws, but it is beyond question that those laws have been and are an important contributory cause. There will always be poverty,, but it is none the less the duty of legislation to do its best to prevent those extremes of pauperism and wealth which have been the cause of so much trouble and disaster in the Old World. Ever since Mr Rolleston has occupied the position of Minister of Lands he has shown himself actuated by a desire to encourage bona fide settlement and to prevent large estates falling into the hands of capitalists. His policy has been to so administer the lands as to render impossible those extremes which we have referred to as existing in Great Britain. But one of the first lessons that a statesman has to

learn is that legislation-of all kinds is necessarily tentative. Success is only possible after a series ot experiments have been made, and last session Mr Rolleston was satisfied with passing a measure which simply enunciated the principle that the proper way to deal with those lands still remaining unsold was to let them under the perpetual lease system. It was not, however, likely that land tenure reform would stop here, and an Amendment Bill has been brought forward extending the principle which had been approved of by Parliament still further, and judging by the reception accorded to the motion for the second reading there seems to be little doubt of its becoming law. What is proposed in this Bill is that the Governor in Council be empowered to proclaim pastoral lands for leasing in blocks not exceeding 5,000 acres each, no person being permitted to hold more than 5,640 acres in the colony, except in the case of a person who may become a lessee or sub-lessee by marriage, or under a will, or by virtue of intestacy. These leases are to be put up to tender at an upset rental equivalent to 2 ios per dent, on the capital value of the land, a statutory declaration similar to that provided in the amendment Act of last year being made. We have enumerated the principal provisions of a measure of great importance, which will no doubt meet with the support of both parties in the House of Representatives and it is to be hoped that the Legislative Council will not stand in the way of its becoming law. There are, however, two important clauses in Mr Rolleston’s new Bill that deserve special notice. One of these is intended to deal a death-blow to dummyism, of which we heard so much from Otago some months ago. It is not improbable that our Southern friends made a good deal more fuss about the matter than there was any need for, but at the same time the agitation served to open people’s eyes to the fact that under the existing Act capitalists could avoid the intention of the law. The condition attached to the lease, that the lessee should reside on the land for a certain period, is found not to be enough, and a moie stringent provision is to be laid down. When this Act comes into force the occupier of pastoral lands will be compelled to “put substantial improvements of a permanent character on the land, to a value equivalent to the amount of one year’s rent of the land, within one year from the date of the lease; and to an equal value within two years from the date of his lease; and thereafter, but within six years from the date of his lease, to a value equivalent to the amount of two years’ rent of the land.” &o injustice will be done to the original lessee, as in the event of his not taking up the lease again at the expiration of his terra, the improvements will be paid for by the new purchaser at a valuation. The wisdom of this clause is, as it seems to us, obvious, ensuring as it will the land falling into the hands of a bona fide settler and thus making dummyism impossible. The other amendment we have referred to will, we fear, meet with considerable opposition in the Legislative Council. It will be remembered that when last year’s Bill went to the Upper House a clause was added giving the right of purchase within six years. The Minister for Lands, much against the grain, accepted this amendment rather than see the measure laid on the shelf till another session came round. That the presence of this clause in the Act has prevented Mr Rolleston from carrying out his intention in regard to the administration of the lands of the colony during the past year cannot be gainsaid, and he now seeks to have it repealed. We do not see how this can logically he objected to, but unfortunately the “ Lords ” are at least as much actuated by interest as by reason in their opposition. The principle has been affirmed by the country that the future land tenure of New Zealand shall be upon the leasehold system, but it is impossible to carry out this principle while the purchasing clause remains in the statute. It is to be hoped, therefore, that the Council will not oppose the measure in a faction spirit, and that it will be carried through the Upper House in its entirety.

The Alford Forest Diamonds. The excitement caused some time ago by the report that an enthusiastic prospector had discovered the existence of diamonds in the Alford Forest district had pretty well died out, when it was announced a few days back that a favorable report had been received from the gentleman who took the precious stones to England, and now the shares in the company formed in Christchurch for the purpose of working the alleged mine have gone up with a rush. A mysterious silence was kept as to the precise nature of Mr Kelsey’s message, but public curiosity has been at last allayed, and we find that the cablegram consists of the following words Cutting. Diamond. Small value.” Most people would have taken this laconic utterance to signify that the stones sent Home were cutting diamonds of small value. This was news which could scarcely be said to be encouraging to the holders of scrip, but ’luckily we have at hand one who is able to interpret the message. Like the Delphic Oracle or the nod of Lord Burleigh, it only needs one who is in the secret to tell us what it means for us to realise the full signification of Mr Kelsey’s words. Mr Jacobsen has stepped forward to enlighten the public mind, and to assure us that the report which most people had in their ignorance probably looked on as unfavorable is quite the reverse. It appears there was an agreement between these two gentlemen, which was to this effect: —ist. That Mr Kelsey was to get some of the diamonds —two or three —cut. end. He was to submit to the decision of certain known authorities in Liverpool, London, and Amsterdam the question of diamonds or no diamonds. 3rd. Mr Kelsey and Mr Jacobsen differed here as to the value, the former rating the stones, in the aggregate, at or ,£4,000, in the event of their proving diamonds ; while Mr Jacobsen reckoned them, as diamonds, altogether of the value of between £BO and £l2O. Mr Kelsey was to indicate in his cable message who was right. Mr Jacobsen, therefore, reads the message thus : —“ I am getting the number of diamonds agreed

upon cut. The stones are diamonds. Their value is the smaller value.”

It is a thousand pities that this lucid explanation of the mystic words was not given sooner, as it would have served to relieve tlie minds of those investors who had simply taken the cablegram to mean what it said. However, now that we have the correct interpretation before us we can indulge in visions of future prosperity for the province of Canterbury. What with gold cropping up in all directions and a diamond field at Alford Forest our dreams will indeed be an embarras des richesscs. But the thought comes over us that if the gems which were tried by our colonial savants by every test known to them and found wanting should prove to be veritable precious stones, our faith in the ability of some of our University professors will be rudely shaken if not altogether shattered. Still, we could make up our minds to bear this blow for the sake of the material prosperity that would accrue to Canterbury if the diamond fields are established in our midst. We fervently hope that when further information is obtained from Mr Kelsey that it will !not be found Mr Jacobsen has allowed an exuberant imagination to get the better of him in his interpretation of the cablegram.