THE PUBLISHED DAILY. WEDNESDAY, A APRIL 12, 1871.

Grey River Argus, Volume X, Issue 845, 12 April 1871, Page 2

THE PUBLISHED DAILY. WEDNESDAY, A APRIL 12, 1871.

Mb Frank Guinness has, at considerable length, endeavored to contravert our argument against the too free adoption in Westland of the system of paying for roads by grants of land. He has entered fully upon all the grounds which, from his point of view, favor the system, and to a certain extent he has been successful. But he has utterly failed to convince us that the objections we raised do not exist. Mr Guinness is perfectly right in saying that no provision exists in the Westland Waste Lands Act for the sale of rural land by auction. On reference to the Act itself, we find that priority of application will secure the purchase of rural land at the fixed price of £1 per acre, and that the Wast Lands Board, in its recent action with respect to land sales intheWaimea district, must have been guilty of an irregular procedure. But his technical correction does not in the least degree damage the position we took up. On the contrary, i* seems to strengthen it, because it now appears that land given in payment for road work cannot be alienated by the County at a higher price than £1 per acre. The case still stands in the objectionable light in which we first regarded it. The contractor for a given road would receive in payment the land benefited by that road, and settlers, instead of going to the Land Office and paying their pound an acre, would have to go to the contractor and pay much more. Mr Guinness "disputes our assertion that contractors would not take land as cash — he is evidently of the opinion that a contractor would construct a road at the same cost for payment in land as he would if paid in cash. We can only say that Jiis opinion is utterly contrary to all experience, and opposed to all recognised business considerations. Is it at all probable that a contractor would pay cash week by week to his laborers and lay out of his money for an indefinite period, aud be content to take only its equivalent in land ? If sucli men are to be found they would just aa soon, buy the laud in. the usual way, and make their owu road or roads afterwards. We know that no contractor would be so foolish. If he took land instead of cash he would charge for the trade interest of his money in the same way that he would ask an extra price for work done on deferred payment. Will Mr Guinness venture to say that the Hokitika and Arahura Road, which was constructed on deferred payments, was done as cheaply as if it had been paid for in cash on completion ? This road supplies exactly the example required by Mr Guinness in his last letter but one. It was not paid for in land, but its payment was deferred — and that would be exactly the position of a contract under the land payment system. But to our mind the chief objection is not so much the extra cost of the road that would be incurred by this plan of payment, but the fact that the land which had been made valuable at the cost of a sacrifice of a -portion of the public estate, would fall into the hands of the contractors. The process is very much like burning the candle at both ends. The County is to 'sacrifice its estate at a loss of at least thirty per cent., and settlement is retarded by the necessity of purchasers being compelled to pay a heavy profit to the holder of the land on the road line. We re-assert that it is contrary to the public interest that the Waste Lands should fall into the hands of a few capitalists. Westland needs a much more active and widely spread settlement than could possibly- obtain under such a state of things. Mr Guinness says that there would be no harm in trying the experiment of land payment by calling for tenders — we say let alternative tenders be called, one for payment in cash as the work proceeds, and the other in land, and he would very soon find out the great difference which contractors would recognise. With regard to the main road from Greymouth to Ross, no doubt such a work would be valuable when obtained, but we directly deny its necessity under present circumstances. Dr Knight's opinion is simply that of a stranger who has been accustomed to good roads between centres of population, but who knows little of the special circumstances of the district. Be it remembered that Westland is only in its sixth year of settlement, and that it is with actual necessities it has to deal, and not with the luxuries of a more advanced stage of existence. Smaller works than the main road mentioned-— horse tracks in the interior — are much more needed in Westland, and would tend • more to its development and settlement. And we say that it would be the height of imprudence to adopt a principle which would, even if successfully carried out, improvidently get rid of the public estate. In case of urgent necessity the land payment system might be followed, but let these cases be dealt with exceptionally, and as they arise. We are not so despondent as Mr Guinness as to the ability of the County Government to make the necessary roads. We do got expect it to be able to repeat such costly and unremunerative works as the Greenstone Road, but, with proper management, it will be quite possible to ' follow upthe natural progress of settlement, and supply the absolute wants of the population. It is not in a position to do more at present,. If it had a large balance in the Treasury, then we should say spend it in prospective requirements. If it could borrow money at a small rate, one would say do so and open up the main roads. But to ask us to approve of the costly and improvident plan of

sacrificing the public estate, for the mere honor and glory of possessing ourselves of the convenience and luxuries which countries four times our age are only just acquiring, is to ask us to consent to a system which we deem to be radically bad and dangerous. We have not space to say anything more on this subject just noV, but we shall probably return to it at the first favorable opportunity?