FORESTS AND FORESTRY

Hokitika Guardian, 4 September 1923, Page 2

FORESTS AND FORESTRY

FURTHER- NOTE OK THE DIRECTOR’S REPORT. NO. IV. The 6th., so-called, recommendation (F) of the Forestry report, is as follows : “A much greater participation in. tlie profitable business of operating community plantations and treefarms by cities, boroughs, counties, and other local bodies is possible by fuller State co-operation. This, it is hoped, will lie possible shortly.” This is, at most, only an expressed hoped. What is, doubtless, meant is that Government be recommended to co-operate with local bodies in operating plantations which, it is assumed, inav later be available for community

Provided such co-operation does not involve subjection to the Forest Service it would meet with general approval. But the policy of the .Service is so essentially one of “grab,” that any local body would be chary of co-operating with it. The hope that has been expressed is, for that reason, unlikely to be realised. The last of the series of recommendations, (G), which preface tho Report proper is as follows:

•‘You arc advised of the pressing need in the public interest for a more definite and unitorm policy of administration and control of tlie several hundred miles of sawmill tramwuys now in operation throughout the forested regions of New Zealand.” The poor old stalking liorse. -‘public interest,” is of course trotted out. Tho proposition in tile recommendation is clothed in the usual Forest Service garb, and a very ineffective attempt is made to camouflage the utter disregard for other’s interests, which lies so poorly hidden in this most tyrannous proposal -this raid 011 privately-ow ned property.

In practically all cases where such tramways have been laid down, they have been constructed to serve areas over- which timber-cutting lights had previously been secured. They are an essential part of the equipment needed for the conversion of forest trees into sawn timber. A tramway is one of the links in the chain from the forest to the users of timber; just as are sawmills, timber lorries, ships or merchants’ equipments; and tlic rights of possession should be equably inviolable. When any such enterprise as timbermilliug has been undertaken, tlioso so engaging in that enterprise have in perfectly good faith legally acquiiod the necessary rights-of-way and permission to construct tramways. They have expended capital upon fixtures, relying upon the Crown carrying out its part Of the contract. Certain obligations and privileges have been laid down by statutes and regulations thereunder; and it was on the assumption that these undertook the expenditure that has been made in such cases. The ‘‘New Zealand Herald” of Auckland, of tile 18th. ull.. in what is evidently an inspired sub-leader, after admitting that the tramways in question ‘•are part of the fixed capital of the milling companies, and are essential to the industry,” attempts to explain that the object of the control is to prevent “vandalism associated with the construction and operation of hush tramways.” The paper makes the remarkable statement that ‘‘A sawmill tramway may be the means of serious injury.” This must be admitted; and with equal reason we contend that our Forest Service may. even more remotely, be the means of perpetuating our national forests. It further says (of the tramways —not the Service, alas!): “Their operation entails, ill addition, wide risk of destruction by fire and other means. They are indispensable; but that decs not entitle every timber-miller to boa, law unto himself." Neither docs the fact that many of those tramways are considered by tho Service, indispensable for the purpose of .immediately realising State Forests, entitle the Service to disregard all precedents of law* and

equity. Beyond the question of equity, however, or of justice to the owners of such tramways, we ate impelled to protest against such Ilolshevie action, by the knowledge that the said, control is sought merely as a means ol enhancing the values of adjacent lore-sis by filching the rights of others, and so hastening tho realisation of such forests and their consequent destruction. It is utter piffle to say the control is “to save young timber trees,” and the Service knows it.

The question raised under this raiding proposal of the Forest Service is akin to the Government action under the Meat Export Act. That measure is being roundly condemned for the reason that it permits the confiscation of property. This from a Reform Government which along with the Welfare League and similar organisations warned the electors a few months ago against the raiding policy of the Labor party in the nationalisation' of property. We notice that Hon. H. T Michel M.L.C.. who was nominated to the Upper House, by the present Government,'had the courage at Christchurch last week to condemn the raiding proclivities of the Government measures. Mr Michel said :

“He thought, that there was a very great principle involved. The principle was that they were now giving the right to the majority—he did not care how large a majority—to seize the property of the minority for what they termed the general good. That was the issue, and it was a very serious one from the economic and commercial view. There was far too much interference in his opinion, with the trade and commerce of this country.’

That is a fair statement of the position and it applies to the unfortunate sawmiller as much as it does to the farmer brought- under the provisions of tho arbitrary Act. referred to.