The Evening Star WEDNESDAY, MARCH 11, 1874

Evening Star, Issue 3448, 11 March 1874, Page 2

The Evening Star WEDNESDAY, MARCH 11, 1874

As the conservation, and reproduction of timber must engage the attention both of the Provincial Council and General Assembly next session, it will be well that public opinion should be formed on the subject, so that such arrangements may be made as will tend to prevent wanton waste of this most important element of Provincial wealth. Considering that our ideas of property in land are derived from hereditary feudal associations, slightly modified by present circumstances, it is surprising that the strict regulations which prevent wholesale waste of timber on English estates should have altogether escaped notice in framing land regulations. Adopting the phraseology of the Waste Land Boai’d’s Committee, who speak of forest as “ the property of the State,” the Government, as trustees of that property, have been singulaidy culpable in tacitly sanctioniug past waste. The idea of “State property” is not new. In olden times large txacts of the forests of England wei’e Crown property,andmanyofthemremain so to this day. But even where timber exists on private estates, law interposes to prevent its wanton destruction. “ A tenant for life has only a qualified interest in them (timber trees) in so far as they afford him shade and shelter, and a light to take the mast and fruit.” If a tenant for life fells timber to a greater extent than is necessary for the “ repairs of houses or fences, I "he becomes liable to an action of waste. The owner of the inheritance is held to be owner of the timber, and he has a right to claim even accidentally fallen timbex-, or to .maintain an action for the recovery of its value, should it be converted to use or destroyed without his consent. So jealous is the law that no waste shall accrue to the owner of the estate, that the Coui't of Chancex*y has frequently directed “ timber in a state of decay to be cut down for the benefit of the person entitled to the inheritance, provided no damage were done to the tenant for life. The practice in these caseh is to ovdeV the money arising

from the sale of the timber to be invested, and the interest of it paid to the tenant for life,”

Herein, w 3 take it, a very good hint is afforded us. Whatever course we may take with our sheep runs, or with our agricultural land, our forests are exceptional. We who now live on the soil are but tenants for life, and, according to the practice of our forefathers, we should feel bound to hand down the estate not only unimpaired but improved. The revenue derived from a right use of our forest land, invested in public works, would aid materially in making Otago rich through the development of its resources. While some 15,000 acres of

timber have been recklessly destroyed in one part of the Province, the industry of another has been retarded through want of suitable timber. The sale of that destroyed, there is reason to believe, would have paid the cost of roads for its conveyance to the goldfields, where it is needed. The fact has Jong been apparent that the Provincial Council has much mistaken its vocation. It busies itself too much with abstract, to the neglect of practical questions. Its true province is to aid efficient administration, and to watch and recommend, rather than to legislate. For ten years, interested theorists have been fiercely debating about how to possess and use the land, altogether overlooking the processes by which valuable districts in the public estate could be made available for further progress. What would

be thought if the heads of a large manufacturing establishment were so completely at loggerheads for three months annually during ten years, regarding the best method of carrying out the most important branch of the business, that they did not notice their employes were allowing waste in one section of that branch, or selling the material bit by bit for less than a pawnbroker would advance upon it 1 ? Or what would the owner of an estate say to his steward were he to act on such a principle 1 For our own parts we look upon it that the analogy between a public and private estate is a just one. The distinction so often made, and which suits the capitalists of the day, has been the cause of bad management and want of system. To absence of system has been owing nmcli of the obstruction to settlement so righteously complained of. To want of system is owing much of the misdirection of labor and capital so manifest in the desultory working of our goldfields

and the abandonment of ground afterwards proved to be richly auriferous. To absence of system is owing the parting with, for nothing, and the wanton destruction of valuable forest. Possibly to want of systematic management of our flax reserves is owing the sickly state of flax production. Absence of practical business principle, pervades our whole legislative arrangements in the management of the Provincial Estate. Wheu a given course is determined upon, no doubt the case is different. The execution is entrusted to

practical officials, who attend to their work and do it. It is not the Superintendent, Executive, and paid officers who are at fault: it is our directors, chosen to manage what they do not understand, and actuated b} r motives narrowed to special interests instead of being based on general principles. ITow far crude notions of the functions of Government may have influenced the choice of representatives we are not about to discuss. That much misconception exists as to the limits within which they should be confined there can be no doubt. There are extreme theorists who object to Governments exercising any control over industrial operations in any way. They hold that private interest is quite sufficient to secure economical use of material. The 15,000 acres of wasted forest is a standing refutation of such a theory. Individual immediate interest overmastered all sense of social responsibility, if it ever existed. But the probability is that any restriction attempted by the Government would have been met by the freeholder who wanted to clear his land with the question, “ Have I not a right to do what I like with my own?” to which no answer could be given. Ox*, if the squatter wanted the grass, he would say, “ The timber is useless, and spoils my run • so it is best to get rid of it in the cheapest and easiest way 3” so he set fire to it and burnt it, not even being a tenant for life : and no Chancellor nor any other man has said to him, “ You had no right to burn that timber; it was valuable ‘national property’ : you must recoup the cost to the Treasury for expenditure on public purposes.”