THE SOUTHLAND WASTE LANDS BOARD.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 5335, 3 May 1878, Page 3

THE SOUTHLAND WASTE LANDS BOARD.

(Brom the Ghristchurch Press, 3rd April.) The Government, or some member of it, has published in the New Zealand Times the following explanation of its action with regard to the Southland ranger - Wc have been requested to give the following explanation as to the statements which havo been made respecting the action of the Hon. tho Minister of Lands In relation to tho removal of a ranger in tho employ of the Southland Waste Lands Board. A commission was appointed to inquire into the matter oi the compliance with tho conditions, settlement, &c„ as recommended last session by the House of Representatives. The Hon. Mr. Macandrew did not address the Southland Waste Lands Board until tho commission had reported, and in transmitting a copy of tho report to the Board the Minister wrote In plimentary terms of tho action they had taken. Sir John Richardson tendered his resignation to the Board in consequence of the alleged dismissal of the ranger; but that officer was not dismissed, he being removed to another district, to which ho was a stranger. When Sir John Richardson became aware of the real position of affairs, ho withdrew his resignation. and is now a member of the Southland Waste Lands Board.

It will be observed that this statement'is introduced in a manner which leads to the belief that our contemporary does not wish to be held responsible for its truth or sufficiency. It is in the last degiee singular, if the supposed report of the supposed commission was actually forwarded, that it was not referred to by any member of the Southland Waste Lands Board up to the time that Sir J, Kiohardson withdrew his resignation.- The fact remains however that, whether by commission or Minister, the ranger was condemned unheard, and the evidence against him is not to this hour forthcoming.. It will be interesting to learn, when Parliament meets, who were these impartial commissioners who reported on a hearing of one side of a case only, and reported in a manner so singularly in' harmony with the Ministerial wishes, as conveyed in Mr. Maoandrew’s despatch to the Board. The new explanation too plainly conceals the true issue to be accepted, and if it should ultimately appear that the commissioners, whoever they were, examined the man Mclntosh, while leaving the ranger unexamined, Mr. Macandrew will scarcely have improved his case by referring, or allowing his colleague to refer, publicly to tho commission at all, without giving the full particulars. About other commissions there is no secrecy. Why then about this ? And why, if the Board knew of the commission, did the members feign ignorance of it ?