The Daily Telegraph. WEDNESDAY, MAY 7, 1884.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 3991, 7 May 1884, Page 2

The Daily Telegraph. WEDNESDAY, MAY 7, 1884.

Tiiehe seems to be some difference of opinion ■ with regard to the part that Mr "W. C. Smith, M.H.8.., took in jw.ssing the Lands Act Amendment Act, 18S2. Some little time back a correspondent, not a resident i/f, ' but writing from Ormondville, asked some questions in relation to this matter. His letter was not intended for publication, ■ though he wished to be informed through, our columns on the subject of which ho I wrote. In reply we stated in effect that a reference to Hansard appeared to show that I Mr Smith had not spoken on tho Bill, nor could we iind in Hansard any mention of Mr Smith having introduced certain clauses with which he is credited. Upon this tho Woodville Examiner, apparently, inspired for (ho occasion, says that if we "wish to bo fair and honest wo shall find, on reference to the Appendix of the Journals of the House for ISS2, that when tho House was in committee on the Land Act Amendment Bill, two amendments which Mr Smith proposed at the request of the bush settlers were carried without a division (the last ono at 4 a.m.), and that there were ten divisions taken on amendments on the Bill, in all of which Mr Smith's name appears, while Mr Sutton's will not be found in one of them, for the simple reason that he was not present, having left the House, while Mr Smith remained there all night, presumably I for the purpose of getting the clauses inserted, which he was successful in doing. We understand that, as regards the second schedule to the Act fixing the price of Crown lands in Hawke'sßßar,} r , that was inserted by the Minister of Lands at Mr Smith's request, after the Bill' was drafted, but before it was re-printed, so that no amendment was required in that." Now, we have no wish to do tiny injustice to Mr Smith, btit in justice to ourselves we must inform our Woodville contemporary that debates in committee are not rejDorted in exlentio. At the same time all amendments to Bills are recorded with the name of the mover, and the division list is always given in full. And we have to say this, that as far as", we can discover there is no record in either Hansard or in the Journals of the House of Mr Smith havin"- moved the amendments claimed for him by his somewhat injudicious friends. The amendments moved by Mr Smith were, / first, one providing that deferred payment selectors should bo entitled to pay the full amount at the expiration of three years occupancy ; and, second, inserting tho word "fifty," thus making the selection one-hundred-and-fifty acres instead of one hundred. Tho first amendment was accepted without a division. So far as we can find in any of the public records this is all that Mr Smith did, aud if lie did more it was done in private with Ministers, and evidently not on the floor of the House. Mr Smith was certainly present when the Bill was before tho House, but we repeat that Hansard does not show that he took any particularly active part in passing the measure. "What he did in committee, and what he did in private consultation with Ministers may have been of extreme importance, and he is justly entitled to whatever value may be attached to lus work. But we repeat that we can find no authority for tho assertion of the Woodville Examiner that the second schedule of the Act was inserted at Mr Smith's personal request to tho Minister. At tho same time, Mr Smith may have fixed the price of Crown lands in Hawke's Bay, and for the matter of that he may have been the author and finisher of tho whole statute book of tho session of 1882, only there does not happen to be any such record of his activity. Referring to another part of the same issue of the Ex,-

aminer we may inform the editor of that spirited journal that a Waste Lands Board does not fix the values of lands offered for sale by the Crown. This is the duty of the Governor, and consequently the Board is not responsible.