The Evening Star THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 1872.

Evening Star, Volume IX, Issue 2795, 1 February 1872, Page 2

The Evening Star THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 1872.

It must not be imagined, from the two resolutions respecting the sale of lauds to Mr Clarke passed by the Waste Land Board yesterday that they are contradictory. They form part and parcel of that crooked course of action by the Board which is likely to involve the Province in an expensive law suit, and no matter what the result, in damage to its fair Rune. What the Boa id is now seeking is justification of a gross breach of contract. In consideration of the right or wrong of a matter a Province should be guided by equity, not by law. The contract entered into was sought primarily by the Provincial authorities, not by Mr Clarke : it was fairly conducted on both sides ; neither agreed, to it unconditionally : the reports of certain officers recommended certain modifications of the contract even after the terms were settled upon and to those Mr Clarke acceded, although he might very justifiably have withheld his consent : and now the Board with characteristic inconsistency insists on the completion of the contract on Mr Clarke’s part, while refuging to fulfil their own obligations to him. In every aspect they have acted arbitrarily and abused the powers with which they are invested. The present state of the case is set forth in the resolutions passed yesterday. It will be seen that there was a special meeting held on Monday, solely in view of this contract. Messrs Smith and Anderson on behalf of Mr Clarke, have asked the Board to agree upon a case for submission to the Supreme Court—a very fair proposition, and in accordance with the provisions of the Waste Land Act, of which the Waste Land Board are the administrators. We are not aware of any clause in that Act authorising such a position as the Board has taken up. There are clauses respecting deposits and respecting payments ; and there is a clause respecting the mode of settling disputes by reference to the Supreme Court; but we know of no clause empowering the Board to make any such condition aa that in the resolution, declining to consider ti aiiy case submitted “ for their approval unless the balance “ of the purchase money be paid within “ the time limited.” This condition is a purely imported one by the Board, and seems very like an abuse of power. The whole affair is now a one-sided one. The Board is carrying matters with a high hand. It assumes a position which, if sustained, must be detrimental to any dealings with it by capitalists ; for it will then he plain that it depends upon tlie caprice of the Board whether a buyer of land will be dealt with equitably or not, it will open a door to the indulgence of political or private picpie, or to personal or political preference. Then the oddity of their proceedings to give thorn no harsher name, is shown by the second resolution. It seems very like children who have committed a fault about to be told to their tutor, desiring to have the first: word. The Board declines to agree upon a case to be submitted to his Honor the Judge, which would be perfectly fair—but will draw one up for themselves, and ask his advice upon their own views of the matter. The resolution is a most singular one. It is to be a fortifier in the proceedings of the past, and a guide in their proceedings for the future. His Honor is to be made acquainted witli the facts, circumstances, decisions of the Board, and questions of law, by which they have been guided. Now this seems very much in keeping with the rest of the conduct of the Board, They first act. then reflect, then doubt, then inquire. They thus reverse the process adopted by clear headed business men, <whosc modus operandi is usually to doubt, inquire. reflect, and act. They are, however, going to do under cover of an Act of Parliament, what commends itself on the face of it as reprehensible. They are going to give an ex parte statement respecting a ease : which may hereafter come before the Court for decision. We do not know that this will materially alter the ultimate judgment, should a case agreed upon by both sides be argued ; for, in all probability, there will be such material differences in the facts laid before the Court, that whatever view his Honor may take of the Board’s proceedings painted by their osvn hands, he may then find it necessary to decide differently. It seems to us, however, now too late to ask for guidance. They have taken their stand in defiance of justice and common sense; ami we cannot see why his Honor the Judge should be called upon to advise them how to get out of their difficulty when they had the Provincial Solicitor to appeal to. At any rate, an agreed case

could just as easily have been submitted as an c.i’ parte statement.