The Globe. FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 1878.

Globe, Volume XX, Issue 1434, 20 September 1878, Page 2

The Globe. FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 1878.

The result of the law proceedings taken a few days ago in the Supremo Court by - - on Road Board, in reference to the uulawnu -:fi lhol(ling 0 f the overdue portion of the Lanu caimot but ho deemed highly unsatisfacto^. j| ma y ] JO remembered that no less a sum ci.„ n £315,000 was due to the Provincial district as far back as April Ist last, and that the Ministry was pledged in no uncertain manner to pay it to the Canterbury local bodies, as the balance of that fund lawfully due to them. It should, in fact, have been paid over some six months ago. But not only was this disbursement —all-important to Canterbury —not made, but when pressure of an unusual character was placed upon the Cabinet by resolutions passed at a meeting of Road Board representatives, to the effect that proceedings at law should be taken towards the recovery of tho gums duo, the Govommout camo down

wifix an inexplicable offer of a paltry £IB,OOO in full djpchargo of a claim which had never boon disputed before. This extraordinary admission of such a paltry indebtedness, loft a sum of no less than £207,000 as claimed by Canterbury totally unexplained, and the public mind became, very naturally, much exercised as to how the amount offered was arrived at by the financial advisors of the Cabinet. Many remember the memorable utterances of the Premier during his ante-sessional tour, when bo so loudly expatiated on the subject of protection being given to those in the Now Zealand community who had nursed and cherished that great colonial boon, their Land Fund. And when delivering himself on that all-important subject, Sir George Grey, speaking of that very question of the spoliation of the Canterbury Land Fund especially, absolutely said that ho would hayo shrunk with shame from some of the expedients which members of the Atkinson Government had recourse to in reference to those suras which they proposed to take, without the authority of the law, from the Land Fund of Canterbury. Ho would have scorned such transactions—added the Premier—knowing full well that in Canterbury every individual who bought land, and paid money for that land, had so paid his money under the pledge that it would bo expended upon certain public works which would give value to the property which ho had purchased; and further, that the fulfilment of this pledge was a solemn contract entered into with him by the Government of the colony. How will the people of Canterbury now reconcile those noble—if high falutin—sentiments with the line of defence selected last week by the Ministry ? We forgot to say that, on the eventful occasion to which wo have just alluded, the head of the present Cabinet wont so far as to urge that people who could bo guilty of such a thing as robbing the Canterbury people of their laud fund in the manner indicated, “ would not hesitate afterwards to break faith with the colonial creditor, and that if they would plunder the people at homo, what safety would there bo for people abroad.” But what has the outcome of the proceedings of the Supreme Court last week been ? Why, neither more nor loss than that Sir George Grey’s utterances on this vexed subject of the right of Canterbury to its surplus laud fund, have proved to bo more oral garbage and vapid demonstrations of a most flimsy character. The pleas urged by the Attorney-General, Mr Stout, who appeared on behalf of the Government to dispute the right of the Canterbury people to hold what was indubitably their own, were of a mere technical nature. The Government practically admitted the whole of the claim made against them for the £287,000, but they, in a point-blank and uublushiugly terse manner, declined by the mouth of the At-torney-General to pay one single stiver of it, because, forsooth, there was not sufficient Legislative machinery to compel them to disgorge. In plain vernacular English, and in a few words, the Cabinet urged that Canterbury’s moneys which happened through accidents of legislative officialism to be within their clutches, should remain there unless mere brute force should hike them out of their grasp. The defence set up by Government against that old and much overdue claim of Canterbury is neither more nor less than a disgrace to any administration, and an indelible stain on constitutional Government. What will now bo the position of every representative sent by Canterbury to the Assembly, should be easily defined. We scarcely see how it can be possible for any one of them to swim in the Ministerial boat, when such a disgraceful robbery of their constituents has been perpetrated in the light of open day. “ Honest Farmer Fisher ” even, ho who so gently handles the leading-sh’ings of the Postmaster-General’s Department, would surely find some ancient blushes diffuse his patriotic features, wore ho—after such a Ministerial expose —to meet his constituents face to face. What the immediate and practical result of this disgraceful ending to our Laud Fund claims may bo in Parliament at this late time in the session, it is perhaps difficult to tell. But wo feel sure that public opinion in Canterbury will watch keenly how their representatives trim their sails, and take to heart —or otherwise —the scandalous proceedings of the Government in so boldly robbing the community of what is Canterbury’s just due.