The Evening Star FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 1871.

Evening Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2498, 17 February 1871, Page 2

The Evening Star FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 1871.

We really begin to be weary of commenting on the various electioneering dodges adopted by the Reid faction. We should be glad if it could be satisfactorily shewn that many of the revelations that come to light had nothing to do with the election ; but they happen at such an awkward time, and seem so well calculated to catch a certain class of votes, that the conclusion that they were intended to bear upon it is irresistible. By some strange ingenuity we are led to believe that the sale of the Island Block has been got over, and that, with Mr Brown’s assistance, the Secretary for Land and Works has got out of that scrape. The miners are said to have let him off. We do not know that the matter ought to be so lightly passed over by the rest of the Province —but of course Mr Reid is only one of the Waste Land Board, so that we have no right even to assume that he was solely responsible for the blunder. A more serious matter has, however, cropped up at Waikouaiti, and is a strictly departmental affair. We were utterly astonished, on receipt of the K aikoituitl Herald, to see the reply of Mr John Douglas to a letter from a settler who apparently thinks himself aggrieved. The simple facts of the case appear to bo these Mr Douglas is owner of a large area of unfenced laud in the Hawksbury Hundred, and has been much annoyed by several settlers in the neighborhood, who, not content with the pasturage on the unsold land within the Hundred, have not scrupled to turn their cattle upon his land to graze. When the Government sells land, the buyer has a right to expect that he should be protected in every privilege included in his purchase—amongst which, we need not say, is exclusive right to the pasture on it. This seems to be so plain that one would have thought even a settler would have had sense to perceive it. The terms of purchase imply no necessity to fence the land ; but, fenced or not fenced, no man has a right to feed cattle on that land without the owner’s permission ; who may, if he choose, fix the terms on which alone he will allow that privilege. Equitably, as well as legally, his neighbors have no right to trespass on the land with their stock. To feed upon his pasture is to rob him and it would be monstrous if, after paying full value for the land, the owner was obliged to maintain an army of shepherds or stock-riders to retain possession of his own property. The only disadvantage be labors under, if be does not fence, is that he is restrained from impounding strayed cattle, and must obtain redress from the owners by action for damages. These principles are so clearly laid down and acted upon, that one would have imagined not a shadow of a doubt could exist on the matter; and they are so manifestly right and just, that the surprise is they need to be explained. Yet, strange to say, the justice of Mr Douglas’s action in the matter was cavilled at. The settlors cast longing eyes upon the grass belonging to that gentleman, and wanted to have it without paying for it > and drovers appear to have turned their mobs of cattle in, to feed. Was it strange that Mr Douglas should seek compensation ? He devised a scheme whereby the settlers could have the use of his land, on paying so ranch per head, with the advantage of being under the care of a herdsman. To our fancy this was a very fair plan. We do not know whether the settlers thought the terms too high or not—that has nothing to do with the question—they were at liberty to accept or refuse the terms. But as they wanted the grass without paying for it, they wrote to ask the Government whether they .could claim it or not. Now if anyone ought to be protected in his rights by the vendors, it is the purchaser of the land ; but instead of protecting him, the department of which Mr Heid is the head adopted the opposite course, and absolutely promised that the licouse-li.olders, if prosecuted for trespass by Mr d ohn Douglas, should be defended by the Provincial Solicitor under instructions by the Department. The letter is dated the 4th May, 1870—just when the contest for the Saperintendeucy was looming. Mr Reid may possibly ffyrow some light upon it that does not appear on the face of it; but as a unique specimen of how landowners are to secure the privilege of cows feeding on the natural herbage—not their own cows, but other people’s, by the way—we print it in full Laud and Works Office, Dunedin, 4th May, 1870. Sir, —I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter dated the 20th ultimo, with regard to certain threats made by Mr Douglas to the effect that he will sue for trespass the owners of any cattle found tresSassing on his uufenced waste lauds in php [awkabury Hundred, unless they agree to pay him to allow the cattle to depasture

thereon. lu reply, I have to inform you ebat the Government are advised that Mr Douglas cannot impound stock trespassing on his unenclosed land, hut that he may perhaps have the right to sue for trespass the owner of any stock so trespassing—it being a duty thrown by the common law upon every person to kcep_ his own property so that it shall do no injury to that of another. The Government can therefore do nothing to prevent Mr Douglas doing as he has threatened, if he thinks proper to attempt it; but should he resort to such a proceeding, it is exceedingly probable that he will suffer more than any other person, as it is not all likely that the damages awarded to him under such circumstances would be anything but nominal, and the costs of the proceedings would therefore fall upon himself. Should the Government be advised of any legal proceedings being instituted against any license holder, the Provincial Solicitor will he instructed to defend the case.— I have, &c., (Signed) Alex. Willis, For the Secretary of Lend and Works, Mr James Ritchie, Preston, Hawksbury. Unless the Secretary for Laud and Works can explain this matter, the inference is inevitable that the Department was prepared at the public expense to uphold injustice. This style of treating landowners can have but one effect: No than will invest money under a Government that will not secure him in possession of his property. Walpole maintained his position by somewhat similar means: we wonder how many votes this kindly leaning towards fattening licensees at the cost of landowners has secured Mr Reid —for if the patronage is extended to Hawksbury Hundred, every Hundred in the Province possesses equal rights.