The Evening Star FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 11, 1870.

Evening Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2375, 11 November 1870, Page 2

The Evening Star FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 11, 1870.

There is no convincing some men that it is always an advantage to give away a crab-apple, if by so doing they can get an apple. Owners of property are very frequently difficult to persuade of this truth. Thousands of instances of this kind could bo given in every country in which the absolute property in land is transferred to individuals. "When the Port Chalmers railroad was projected, in consequence of the exorbitant demands of some of the owners of property, delay took place in beginning the work, and the Province was

put to the expense of passing a Compulsory Land-Taking Ordinance, by the operation of which these grasping landed proprietors are compelled to give up the necessary portion of land at a fair and reasonable rate of compensation. In strict justice, they should have been expected to pay something for the privilege of a railroad passing through their property, as the construction of such a work must add so materially to its value. Just in the same way, every township near which any of the projected lines pass should be expected to erect platforms and stations, as some slight return for the benefits derivable from railway communication. We have no doubt that were this principle acted upon, and a rule made that no township should have the use of a railway that refused to incur the necessary expense of station and approaches, a very great step towards reduction in the cost to the public of railway construction would be effected. And although the proposition is to some extent new, it is not an unfair one. The value of every man’s property in the township would be so enormously increased by the improved means of intercommunication, that it would only be just towards the rest of the Province, the inhabitants of which bear their share of taxation necessary for the remaining cost of the line. But so long as men have law on their side, some will be found to try to profit at the expense of their neighbors. They have not public spirit to bear part of a common sacrifice for a common good. In order to reap a special benefit, they will stand on their rights; and although all their neighbors are willing to contribute their proportions towards a plan that will raise the value of the property affected by it, they seem to imagine that such glaring advantage to the rest will induce a splendid offer for their concurrence, if they only stand out a while. We may wrong those who have for so long a time refused to give land for widening the road to the Ocean Beach. They may perhaps be actuated by other reasons than this mistaken view of selfinterest, We do not know, nor wish to know, who they are, for wo are applying a general principle. It was said at the deputation that waited upon his Honor yesterday, that there was only one who insisted upon this privilege of the landowner of refusing to give anything towards improving his own property. But this was contradicted, and we understand there were several. It is unfortunate for Dunedin that so little care has been taken to lay out wide streets. Already this grand mistake is forcing itself upon attention. The traffic in our principal thorough; fares requires to be as strictly regulated as in towns in Victoria twice the size. At some future day enormous expense will have to be incurred in buying up valuable property to add to street accommodation. It is very unsightly to see buildings standing back from the rest, and unfortunately occasionally tradesmen experience slight disadvantage through their premises not being in the line of frontage ; but in view of the necessity for increasing the width of the main thoroughfares, it would only be following the dictates of a wise forethought if this contingency were provided against in all future erections. It seems enormous folly, waste of time and capital, to put a building up that must come down again in the course of a few years, and for which a much higher price will have to be ]>aid as compensation on account of the increased value of the vested interests involved. In view of contingencies of this kind, Corporations ought to have some sort of power to compel the compliance of any one landed proprietor, when all but he desire that a beneficial alteration should be made. Such means of driving men to contribute to their own good are found necessary in other undertakings. In Victoria similar selfish endeavors to take advantage of more liberal counsels were evinced in quartz-reefing and alluvial mining. Very often the claim lowest on the lead had to erect pumping machinery to drain the water oft’; and until a law was passed assessing the whole of the claims benefitted by the drainage, in fair proportions, many associated companies refused to contribute. We consider this dog-in-the-manger conduct just as necessary to be counteracted as it is to remove a physical obstruction. We hope that now the matter is brought before the public, the obstructionists will reconsider it, and withdraw all opposition to a plan that will be so much to the advantage of themselves and their neighbors as widening the Ocean Beach road.