King Country Chronicle Saturday, November 4, 1911. DEPARTMENTALISM.

King Country Chronicle, Volume VI, Issue 411, 4 November 1911, Page 5

King Country Chronicle Saturday, November 4, 1911. DEPARTMENTALISM.

Among those who have at any time

had business with any of our State Departments complaints are common regarding the length of time taken to complete even the simplest transaction. More particularly does this apply in cases where land is concerned, though scarcely a branch of the Civil Service exists that has not been bearti'y condemned by those unfortunates who have suffered the inconvenience attendant upon unnecessary and vexatious delay. It can readily be understood that where a volume of business is done by any department that at times the work will accumulate and slight delays occur. It is not to this we refer. The delay is always a

feature and it is a sufficiently serious feature, to constitute a blot on the departmentalism of the country. It is ridiculous that business should be disoragnised, an I people put to serious inconvenience and in many cases loss, because any department is so slackly administered that nobody can tell when its work will be accomplished. Time was when the Native Department was held up to scorn for itdilatory and careless methods. Admittedly there was much to complain of that has now been altered, but that there is still room for improvement is shown by the circumstances surrounding the issue of township leases for the sections disposed of at the lastsales in Otorohanga, Te Kuiti and Taumarunui. What explanation will be forthcoming regarding the omission of a compensation clause from the leases it is difficult to imagine. There are always people ready and eager to place the worst construction on official action of any description, but in this instance the offence is of such a glaring nature that it can hardly be Attributed to anything but gross carelessness. The reluctance of human nature in general to admit a blunder may account for the delay in remedying the situation, but notning can excuse it. Feople were paying high rentals; in some instances lessees had improved their properties by placing expensive buildings thereon; others again delayed spending money in improvements until the question was settled. No palliative can be found for delaying to set these people right, and the claim that their rental payments should be refunded up to the time of adjustment merits every support. Somebody requires a lesson and it is to be hoped the lesson will be administered to the benefit of those who have suffered.