A CLERICAL ERROR.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVI, Issue 2350, 17 November 1908, Page 2

A CLERICAL ERROR.

[To the Editor.] Sir,—l see by the papers that the Commissioner of Crown Lands, Napier, wishes to take the blamo on himself in regard to the renewal of Run 42, and says the Minister was not to blame, and he further wants to make out that tho decision was arrived at through a clerical error in the schedule, where it said tho run was not suitable for close settlement when it should have said suitable. Now, Sir, I think it is very good of the Commissioner to make a scapegoat of himself to shield others; but the public can see through it, and if you will look up the correspondence that was laid on tho table of tho House you will find that-on March 4th the Ma nister, Hon. R. McNab, gave liis decision on Runs 17, 66, 45, 43, and 46, and not a word said about Run 42. This run had already been at tended to by the Under-Secretary, and the Hon. 'Jas. Carroll, and there was no occasion for it To come before the Minister of Lands. In any of the correspondence that -has seen daylight I cannot- find that the Minister had the question of whether or not Run 42 was or was not suitable for subdivision brought before.him. I think it may he taken for granted that tho Under-Secretary settled this business on his own account, without bringing the matter before -liis chief. Instructions were then sent from _tbo Department to the C-ommis-sioner, who ' then forwarded them on to the lessee of Run 42 without the matter coming before the Land (Board for its approval—which is clearly illegal—and at is on this point that Mr E. Dane has made a serious charge against the Minister of Lands for maladministration of the land laws. I took the trouble to forward a telegram to the Commissioner to-day as follows —“Commissioner Crown Lands, Napier.—Did copies Simson’s report on runs not accompany schedule to Minister?— G. J. Black.” His reply is as follows: — “G. J. Black, Gisborne.—Yes, it- did.—Henry Trent, Commissioner.” ■ , Now, -Sir, is this not proof conclusive that there has been underhand work in tho Lands Department? Is it likely t-liat a question involving thousands of pounds would be deaided on a schedule, when the finl reports were also there. I now leave the matter for your readers to judge whether or not I have proved my case.—l am, etc., . G. J. BLACK.