THE GOVERNMENT AND THE SOUTH LAND RANGER.

Globe, Volume IX, Issue 1269, 12 April 1878, Page 3

THE GOVERNMENT AND THE SOUTH LAND RANGER.

The following is taken from the report of the “Southland Times” of the proceedings of the Waste Lands Board for that district at a meeting on April sth, and lias reference to a matter upon whiop'wp have already mented'.--The Chief Commissioner read a letter from Sir John Richardson, in reply to one from the Board, requesting him to withdraw his notice of resignation as a member of the Board until certain questions relative to deferred payment lands before the Board had been disposed of. Sir John declined, and regretted his inability to comply with the request. A communication from the Minister of Lands was next considered. It dealt with the dismissal of Ringer Campbell, and ordered the payment of his salary to the end of last month, at. the rate of per annum, with £'fo travelling expenses, o The Minister also announced that in the meantime the duties that had devolved upon Ranger Campbell would be discharged by Mr Mussen, who was the ranger of the Mataura district, and who could very well work both. The Board was requested to forward Mr Mussen’s full name, and the amount that the Board thought would bo a fair salary for him. ■ A dbcursion ensued, the Hoard being decidedly .averse to tfie as Mr Mussen would he serving both the Otago Lands Board and the Southland Board. Mr Pratt said no man could serve two toasters, He was afraid that the ney ranger

would bo oftener found in the Mataura than in the western district.

Upon the motion of Mr Lumsden the following resolution was agreed to—“ That the Southland Lands District requires an officer fulfilling the duties of forest bailiff and ranger to give his undivided attention to the work, for which, if zealously performed, his pay and expenses should not bo less than £3OO a year.” Mr Denniston said that the introduction of the foregoing question re-opened, in his opinion, the whole subject of the ranger’s dismissal, and he should therefore move the following resolution: —“That this Board, in consideration of the action of the Government in dismissing Kanger Campbell, resolves, that such action was discourteous towards the Board, and unjust towards the ranger; inasmuch as that officer was, in the first instance, responsible to the Board, and inasmuch as he ought not to have been condemned except on specific charges, and opportunity been given him for defence.” He wished it to be understood that he meant no disrespect to the Government, but that he was constrained to take action to prevent the Board from drifting into a false position. He thought that the Government had paid but scant respect to the Board in not consulting them before the dismissal of the ranger was determined upon. Again, the ranger had been unjustly dealt with in having been condemned without a trial. He wished to see the self-respect and independence of the Board maintained, and its position relative to the Minister of Lands clearly defined. Mr Lumsden took exception to the resolution. The ranger was not their servant, or responsible to them. Mr Denniston said that the ranger was clearly under the Board’s control. Mr Lumsden thought not, and quoted the 17th section of the Land Act, which authorises the Governor to appoint rangers of Crown lands, whoso duty it would be to see that the provisions of the Act were complied with, and “ otherwise to discharge such duties as the Commissioner of Crown Lands shall appoint.” The Government had acted courteously to the Board in announcing the ranger’s dismissal even. Mr Denniston thought that Mr Lumsden’s arguments only strengthened his. According to the Act, the ranger was subservient to the Chief Commissioner, hence to the Board also. Certainly the Board should have been consulted before the ranger was dismissed. Moreover, ho was of opinion that much of the charges that had been laid against him was merely trumped. Mr Lumsden had opposed him, but he trusted the other members would support his motion. Did not Mr Lumsden think that the ranger had suffered an injustice P Mr Lumsden admitted that the man had been hardly dealt by. Mr Pratt questioned the discretion of championing the Bangor’s cause, as it might interfere with his future employment by the Government. Mr Denniston said if the man preferred a Government situation with a stain on his character to having his case made known, that was his look out. He (the speaker) was, however, more concerned about the Board’s position than about the Ranger. Mr Toahack was scarcely prepared to support the motion, but suggested it should be tabled as a motion to be considered next meeting, and meantime the members could think it over. The Chief Commissioner was in favour of going to the bottom of the matter. He behoved with Mr Denniston that the Ranger had received scant meed of justice, and that many of the stories told to the Minister of Lands about him were unfounded. This was no mere assumption on his part, for during a recent visit to Riverton, he was told in connection with some of these charges that they were absolutely false, and oaths were taken to that effect. No doubt the Ranger must be under the instructions of the Board, or else the duties of the Board could not be efficiently carried out. Campbell _ had many enemies, as any ranger must who did his duty. It was ultimately agreed that Mr Denniston’s motion should be tabled as a notice for next meeting.