The Globe. THURSDAY, JUNE 27, 1878.

Globe, Volume IX, Issue 1363, 27 June 1878, Page 2

The Globe. THURSDAY, JUNE 27, 1878.

The representatives of a number of the Road Boards within the Canterbury Provincial District have, after patiently waiting the good pleasure of the Government for many months, entered a protest against the retention of the balance of land fund duo to them. It is a somewhat strange fact —one, too, commented upon by a speaker at the Conference — that this illegal retention should have been so quietly submitted to by the people of Canterbury and the Road Boards themselves. Under one pretext and another the Government have continued to detain the money from the 31st March last till the present time. They have deliberately broken the law, which is clear upon this point, and about which there can bo no mistake. The Public Revenues Act, 1877, provided that in ninety days after the 31st December the money duo to the local bodies should be paid over. And it must be recollected that this was the proposal of the Government themselves. When the Bill was passing through the House Mr Rolleston wished a clause inserted making it incumbent on the Colonial Treasurer to pay over the amount within thirty days. Sir George Grey, whilst expressing virtuous indignation at the thought of sucli a restriction being necessary, suggested the longer period of ninety days, which was agreed to. Titus the law, which the Government have disregarded, was made with their own concurrence. Under all these circumstances, it is hardly to bo wondered at that the Conference were unanimous in reprobating the conduct of the Government, The wonder is that this action was not taken before. They agreed to protest against the action of the Government, and also, if necessary, to take legal steps to compel them to comply with the law. Some stress was laid, by one or two of the members of the Conference, on the fact that the Road Boards were not officially informed that the Government declined to pay over the money, and that therefore any action taken by the Conference would be, so to speak, premature. These gentlemen, however, it seems to us, missed the point. It is true no official intimation had been received by the Road Boards that the Government declined to pay over the money. They were far too shrewd for that. Even the apathy, or the blind infatuation for everything connected with Sir George Grey and his party which seems to exist in some quarters hero, would scarcely have prevented a strong expression of public feeling 1 had it been announced officially that the Government refused to pay over the sums due to local bodies, and which the law provided should bo paid within a certain time. But they could scarcely have shown more decidedly that they intended to hold the money as long as possible despite the law, and, therefore, the Conference was fully justified in taking the course they did. Further than this, if the Government pay over the money on the date they have fixed, that tardy act of justice does not in any way condone for a deliberate breach of the law, and upon this the Conference was perfectly competent, and indeed entitled, to express as it did, its decided and emphatic opinion. The excuse given by the Government is that the delay occurred in consequence of the necessity of ascertaining the amount duo to the Road Boards. This, it may be presumed, has reference to the rumoured deductions which it has been said the Government intended to make from the balance of the laud fund duo to local bodies. Even supposing such deductions wore legally chargeable the ascertaining of the amount payable would take but a very brief period of time, certainly it would not require three mouths after the expiration of the ninety days allowed by the law. But the Government know or ought to have known better. If they had reform! to the Financial Arrangements Act they would there have found it explicitly stated that the balance of land fund, after certain charges had been made, should bo paid over without any further deduction to the local bodies. Those charges, as shown in published accounts, wore made months back, and therefore the £315,000 which was the balance remaining in the hands of. thq Government, was indisputably the property qf the local bodies, and no further deduction could legally bo made from it. The whole of the charges upon the land fund have been settled by legislation, and aro accurately ascertainable in a very short time. Therefore this excuse for the breach of the law which has been committed by the Government has no foundation whatever. The Government could, had they chosen, have ascertained, in a few days at most, that the amount in their hands was due to the local bodies, and they could have easily complied with the law, But another point arises hero as an explanation of the delay which has occurred. It is rumoured that the Government were unable to comply with the law as regards the payment of this money, because it was not in the Treasury, and that until the loan was raised the Government were in the position of having spent the money due to the Canterbury local bodies and secured to them by law. Some colour iij given to this rumour by telegram of the special correspondent of the Lyttelton Times appearing on Saturday last, which says that “ the Government have resolved to pay oyer at once to the Canterbury Road Boards the amount of surplus land fund to which they are entitled,” The telegram goes on to say, which is the most important point in it—“ The uon-raising of the loan was the cause of the delay,”

Notwithstanding this, we aro very reluctant to believe that there can bo any truth in such a serious charge against the Government. It amounts —as the Hon. Ernest Grey put it —to nothing loss than a charge of larceny as a bailee. Upon this point our contemporary the Tinwru Herald, which can hardly bo classed in the ranks of the Opposition journals, speaks so plainly and so fully that wo venture to cpiote his remarks. After commenting on the conduct of the Government in committing so deliberate a breach of the law, the Herald goes on to say : —“ The only other explanation that we can think of which can be offered for their conduct is that they had not sufficient money to satisfy the claims of the Boards, and were obliged to defer the payment of the land fund until the loan was raised. This explanation, it will bo at once observed, presupposes an act of the grossest dishonesty and breach of trust on the part of the Government. It assumes that they took the money which belonged to the local bodies in Canterbury, and used it for other purposes, relying on the raising of the loan to enable them to make good the defalcation. This is exactly the offence which brings so many clerks, trustees, and others to the felon’s cell. In the groat majority of cases of embezzlement, the crime begins by the culprit taking money which is entrusted to him for a particular purpose, and applying it to other purposes, in the sincere belief that he will be able to replace it before any serious consequences ensue. Yery frequently he is anticipating a loan. If ho raises the loan before the money is missed, thou he makes it good in time to escape detection. If not, the fact of his coming into funds afterwards and tendering the amount which ho has abstracted will not help him. He has not merely contracted a debt. He has committed a fraud, and must suffer the penalty of his crime, though ho may be in a position to restore tenfold the amount which he has stolen. Such is the law in respect of private individuals tampering with money entrusted to them; and it cannot, wo think, be disputed that the same principle applies with at least equal force to public persons entrusted with public moneys.” _____