The Evening Star TUESDAY, JANUARY 16, 1872.

Evening Star, Volume IX, Issue 2781, 16 January 1872, Page 2

The Evening Star TUESDAY, JANUARY 16, 1872.

At the meeting of the Waste Land Board yesterday, the question of the sale of 45,500 acres of land in one block to Mr J. Clarke was brought under consideration, and Mr Stout was heard in condemnation of the sale on behalf of certain residents in the district. So far as he is concerned he had to do mainly with a specific transaction, and a perusal of the report of his speech will shew that he very ingeniously availed himself of the weak points of the case to convince the Board that they have not only acted illegally but have laid down a precedent which, if followed, will act prejudically to the public interest. There were, however, points in his address with which we do not concur. We have before expressed our opinion ol this transaction, and the lame excuses for it with which Mr Stout wound up his address, do not alter our convictions. He may sympathise with an Executive driven into a corner by a continued course of factious opposition to law : we do not. He may try to excuse the action of a subservient majority in the Provincial Council, anxious to gloss over two years of stagnation induced by opposition to an Act, which properly administered, might have proved the means of rapid and successful settlement; we cannot do otherwise than condemn it. The dilemna in which the Executive was placed was self-induced. The state of their banking account was quite sufficient to warn them of the inevitable consequences of their factious conduct, and yet with the full knowledge of the state of affairs before them they persisted in refusing to bring an Act into operation, the judicious working of which would have relieved them at once of their, indebtedness, and been beneficial to the country. Mr Stout himself had the most claim upon sympathy, for he seemed to think it necessary to find excuses for the friends with whom he had acted, and whom he had aided and abetted in their factious course, while professionally he was called upon to condemn the crooked plan they had hit upon to wriggle out of their difficulties. Do as he would, however, he could not avoid conveying indirect censures upon the inconsistency of an Executive professing such anxiety for the welfare of the poor, hard-working settler, while pandering to the purchasing power of the rich. The Shingle Block sham and the Island Block abomination were necessarily referred to, but in a gingerly sort of way. It was not the Executive nor the Waste Land Board that were to blame that the Island Block fell into the hands of one man : it was tJm cowardice of those who wanted laud and did not hid for it. Not a word of question why the fee-simple of a pice of land believed to cover vast golden riches was parted with. That formed no part of the cast.', although one objection raised to the continuation of the sale to Mr J. Clarke was that the Laid was auriferous. But the public have not to do so much with Mr Stout's opinions as with actual tacts. They have to ask themselves whether the machinery they have constructed answers the purpose intended, or whether it has not been made subservient to the policies of successive Governments. The evident intention of remitting the administration of tjie Waste Lands of the Grown to a Board was that it should not be under the control of the Government of the day. i The Board was intended to stand bei tween tfic Government and the people. They are required to administer the law irrespective of They ought to know no party, acknowledge no governmental control. Their duty is to consider whether an application for the purchase or use of land is in accordance with the law. They have nothing to do Avith the necessities of government. It should not matter to them one jot whether Mi’ Keid’s opposition to the General Government, and the subsequent negotiations for the sale of a block of land to relieve the Provincial treasury from its consequent difficulties Avefc successful or unsuccessful. They ate administrators of the law as it stands, and are not bound to find excuses for certain questionable transactions by doubtful interpretations of particular passages, in an Act of Parliament. The whole end and purpose of the institution by siich a course of action is neutralised. The Board has fortified itself in this and former transactions by availing itself of clauses formed with the evident intention of guarding against injustice to one class when called upon to give place to another. They have been quite as ingenious in finding words in the Act to justify their subservience to the Government of the day, as Mr Stout Avas in pointing out fcfie Avay by which they cohid justify the rejmdiaUop of a bar-

gain entered into, and of which ratification could not be refused without disgracing the character of the Province. It seems now that Mr Clarke intends to appeal from yesterday s decision to the Supreme Court, -when in all likelihood the arguments that Mr Smith would have used in reply to Mr Stout will be heard, and become not the less forcible now that the bearings of the case have been subjected to opposing legal scrutiny.