IN A TIGHT CORNER

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVII, Issue 8360, 21 February 1913, Page 6

IN A TIGHT CORNER

The Hon. W. F. Massey, the Prime Minister who is content to be driven with a press halter around his neck, and who responds meekly to the crack of the editorial whip, is credited in the columns of the squatters’ organ with an official reply to our criticism of the most recent land ballot scandal in Southland. It is worthy of remark that Mr Massey does not venture upon an open straightforward reply in our columns in, which the adverse comment appeared. May we be allowed to suggest that this is a degree of freedom and independence that is not conceded to him by his party? Mr Massey and some of his colleagues certainly appear to be in leading strings. Just as it happens that when they journey to Wanganui, as they did last week as a Ministerial party, Mr John Duthie was an indispensable , companion, probably as guide, philosopher and friend, so _ it also happens that when a Ministerial explanation is required it cannot be furnished unless it first filters through the columns of the squatters’ organ. We commiserate Mr Massey on the undignified and humiliating position he is content to occupy. What a contrast between this and the manly independence of < his Worship the Mayor (Mr D. McLaren), who entered a public remonstrance on Wednesday night against the attempt of the squatters’ organ to dominate him and his municipal policy. “I am beginning to doubt,’’ said Mr McLaren, “whether I am the Mayor or whether the paper is,” So far as the Hon. W. F. Massey and the Prime Ministership are concerned, however, there appears to be no possible doubt whatever. However, let us return to the “official” explanation. Our charge was that in balloting for section 66, block 24, Invercargill Hundred, one Wilson, who already held 390 acres of freehold and leasehold, was, On the condition that he divested himself of his land within six months, allowed to go to the ballot against another named Horan, who was landless, and that the propertied Wilson actually drew the section. Our points were that this was an improper procedure, that preference should have been given to the applicant without laud, and that it was never contemplated that the State should provide land for those already possessed of plenty. We made the further objection that it _ was an improper evasion of the spirit of the law to knowingly permit an owner of property to divest himself of his land in order to qualify himself for a State section and the profit accruing, at the cost of the people, from such an indefensible transaction. The “official” explanation, furnished by the squatters’ organ, or Mr Massey, or both, proves our charges up to the Lilt. Let ns quote it literally: Three applications (toduriing that from Mr Horan) were received for the section. One was rejected os not landless. Another, a Mr Wilson, held an education reserve of 190 acres, and freehold of 200 acres, valued at £2 fie per acre. The hoard allowed him to go to the ballot provided he daveatad himself of his land under Section 11 of the Land Laws Amendment Act, 19X2. HnramendWilr eon were loft in the ballot, and Wilson was successful. Wilson assured the board that has load was in the market. He is a practical man with a lifetime expedience in forming’, and has throe eons living with hast. The Commissioner considered Horan totally unfitted for (airing up the section, owing to various dwaHlSties. Now, wo say advisedly that if the policy of the ‘Ttcform” Government was to provide land for the landless, as they are fond of asserting, it was wrong and culpable to allow Mr Wilson to direst hdn»elf of his land in order to qualify himself for competition with a man who had no land whatever. Moreover, this explanation, impudently admits that a third applicant was rejected because ho was not landless. Then why was Mr Wilson not rejected also? He was a landlord. He held 190 acres of leasehold and 200 acres ox treenold. And > “Reform,” the party of unexampled and unsullied purity, was content to remain smilingly acquiescent ■while he “Arrested” himself of his property and shouldered aside «. man without land. Those, of course, are the things that pause the Hon. W._ F. Massey, the chief apostle of purity and “square deals,” to bo greatly amused. It is highly probable, however, that other people with a keener perception of the difference between right and wrong will be highly indignant. There is a personal footnote to the official ex-, planation, and with due respect to Mr Massey’s omnipotent power in the disposal of the public estate, we maintain that it adds insult to injury. Let it speak for itself: Mr Horan, according to the official report, is a very old man, an exechoolmaster with very little practical experience of farming, and is lame. ' The hoard considered that of the two men Mr Wilson was likely to make much the better settler. The Ministerial apology would be sounder without this wretched addendum. Wo hare yet to leam that age

is a crime in this country, or that it disqualifies a man from taking up farming pursuits. Besides, the important fact is omitted that Mr Horan has three stalwart sons, who were prepared to go on this farm with him, and who would have made good settlers. Then again, if Mr Horan was so old and infirm, how did he happen to pass the personal interview with the board, and why was he accepted as an eligible candidate for the ballot? In any case, if we leave Mr Horan wholly out of the question, why was a third applicant rejected because he was not landless while Mr Wilson, the owner of 200-acres of freehold and 190 acres of leasehold, was allowed to divest himself of his considerable property in order to get this land ? t If the Hon. W. F. Massey has not given way to another of those uncontrollable fits of amusement, we would suggest that these are interesting points that might ' also b© “officially” explained in the columns of the squatters 7 organ in the inteiests of purity and square deals.