Cromwell Argus. AND NORTHERN GOLD-FIELDS GAZETTE. Cromwell: Tuesday, December 16, 1873.

Cromwell Argus, Volume V, Issue 214, 16 December 1873, Page 4

Cromwell Argus. AND NORTHERN GOLD-FIELDS GAZETTE. Cromwell: Tuesday, December 16, 1873.

J Ox Saturday evening last, the Secretary j for the Gold-fields, while speaking,on..the. I commonage subject, twitted us with.having, in the leader of last week, quoted the Waste Lands Act of 1872 as Scripture .is sometimes quoted,—that is, we suppose, as a certain individual, nameless here, is said to have quoted; it, in a distorted manner, and one to suit our own preconceived opinions. We were further informed that the Government were too anxious.' to facilitate settlement in any district to neglect any lawful means of obtaining land for the purpose, and that, in confining their efforts to negociations with the pastoral tenants, .(we must not .call .them squatters any move,) they were only; following the advice given by several lawyers of the highest repute. We also.'.heard with somewhat amazed feelings, that none of the runliolders object to bonajide miners feeding/a horse and two or three head of cattle, without the necessity of * the Go.. vernment interference at all. And", in conclusion, we were told sufficient to make us infer, that beyond the 7000 acres once offered by Messrs LoTiszhnan, —and' it is very doubtful whether the offer still holds good,—-there is not the slightest chance of a commonage being at present granted to us. These were the principal points iu Mr Bastings' short speech on the commonage question, and to these we shall as much as possible confine our remarks. ."• . In the first place, we have simply to assert thai; the quotations made by us fromthe Act are literally correct, and that, to the very best of our knowledge, no clause or portion of a clause can be found in the Act which goes even to modify, let alone destroy-j'the meaning attached by us to the clauses as quoted. Clauses 73 and - 76,. which are the most important for us, refei entirely to land upon gold-fields, and to land nowhere else. If Mr Bastings really thought and knew that we had misquoted the Act, it would have been the simplest thing in the world to have proved that such was the case, by a plain reference to the Act itself; and almost any person in Cromwell would have found a copy for him. Then, with reference to the opinions of the lawyers in the matter. We do not doubt Mr Bastings' word, that they advised the Government to settle the matter with the runliolders by means of negociations, or friendly bargains; and we approve of the advice given. It is always desirable to settle these matters by friendly means, if a friendly way is open. But if not, if the runholder says he does not wish to part with his land, and will not, are we to understand that the lawyers say the Government can do nothing 1 In that case, we demand, and we think with reason, to have the written opinion of the various lawyers on the meaning or use of clause 76. Why should the Governor have discretionary power to cancel a depasturing lease at all 1 and why should provision be made for discovering and paving compensation to the pastoral tenants in the event of such cancellation 1 Lawyers nre not infallible in their interpretation of the law, and it is possible that they might misinterpret the meaning of this particular portion of it. On the occasion when

that two solicitors whom he had consulted had '• grave doubts" only as to whether the' Government had power to take the land compulsorily. On.this occasion, we find that Mi* Bastings' lawyers have -'progressed" into a decided opinion that the Government has no power. The law is the same now as it was twelve months ago, and the very fact that it has taken the lawyers all that time to make up their minds is a sufficient proof to us that their opinions are '•not altogether to be taken on trust. We.know what their dictum is—now we want their reasons. We have already stated our opinion,—and, we venture to.sav, the opinion of ninetv-nine men

out of a hundred, —and till the reasons for departing from it are published, we shall content ourselves with simply re-affirming our belief in it, namely, that the Government have no real difficulty in proclaiming a commonage if they have the will to do so. We said we were amazed to hear that rjunholders hud no objection io allow bona fide miners to run a horse and two or three head of cattle upon their stations. The news is too good to be true. It is one of those pleasant fictions indulged in by runholders to quieten the scruples of a tooconfiding Government when the hardships of impounding raids are brought forcibly • under their notice. It is like the privileges which a miner, by virtue of his miner's right, is supposed to possess—a de lnsion and a snare. We should be amazed at our own folly if we condescended to further speak upon this point in the meantime. Miners have often been described as easily led, but we hardly think they will be misled by such an undisguised sop as this.' •■ \r--nm^ And'now, as to the 7000 acres offered by the Messrs Loughnan, on certain con ditions. As Mr Bastings well knows, a block of this extent, and of the quality.

would be totally inadequate to meet the wants of this district. The very mention of the 7000 acres makes us think that the matter has not received that amount of attention at the hands of the Government to which it was entitled. To all practical intents and purposes we have got the 7000 ucres -already. Jn the course of some remarks upon the .aamesilbject, Mr Turnbull said he would be very glad indeed if the Argus would point out the method which should be adopted to obtain the cancellation of a runholder's 'lease. Very well; we shall do so, arid briefly. Let Mr Turnbull's E|xecHtivl'redommend the Governor to cancel the lease or leases over as much of the neighbouring run or runs as the sum.of £2OOO will pay compensation for. We reckon it will pay for twelve thousand acres." The Governor having done this, let the Superintendent reserve the twelve thousand acres' for commonage purposes till the Provincial Council meet. We confidently reckon upon the reserve being then made permanently.

Mr Turnbull, in promising to furnish for publication the opinion of the lawyers on the commonage question, said if it was desired, the opinion of the Attorney-General, the highest law authority in the Colony, could be obtained. The intention of the Act is plain enough, and if its legal mean*Ing is different from its intention, have 1 we not to blame greatly the very same AttorneyrGreneral. What confidence can we have, therefore, in his exposition of the law now ? . Ought he not to have corrected the errors in it, if there are errors, before it passed into law. Hear what the Guardian says on a similar subject:— "It is certainly strange that, while we have, unlike our neighbours in Australia, a nonpolitical Attorney-Oeneral, we have perhaps the •worst-drafted body of Acts in the empire. Hardly an Act one can open but it is disfigured by some silly hiatus or contradiction. Curious, we say, but at the same time very unsatisfactory. We have often said already, and it will <lo no harm to repeat, we are quite hopeless of seeing any change in this serious matter until a special body of draftsmen be provided to take charge of these things. We repeat that when we have long ago admitted, under the pressure of experience, that a nopular assembly is unlit for ,the direct business of administration, we have no Tight to assume that it is more fit for the direct ■work of legislation." On the contrary, it is most certainly-l&s adapted to the latter work than to the forni#r*. Until this is practically acknowledged atlc( acted on by appointing experts to' this work of drafting, the evil will go on accumulating, and the proper name for our Statute.book will be—mess."