THE PREFERENCE OF SECTIONS.

Otago Witness, Issue 2813, 12 February 1908, Page 22

THE PREFERENCE OF SECTIONS.

RECONSIDERATION NECESSARY.

(Fboji Ova Own Cobkespondent.) OAMARU, February 6.

Considerable interest has been taken in the past few days in the ballot for the Otekaike sections, which will probably take | place to-morrow, but attention has been , particularly directed to the efforts that have been made to secure a reconsideration o£ the preference given to four persons who were awarded sections without a ballot. One of these sections, h will be remembered, is a large area (sufficient, competent mem state, to make two or three profitable sub^ divisions), which has been granted to Mr Jardme, who has managed the estate for years past. Leases of two other section? [ have been granted to persons who have noli been employed on Otekaikte for some years, but who hay c been in the employ of Messrs Kobert Campbell and Sons (Ltd.), on others of their estates. The fourth is only a, small section, which does not interest anyone very much. The strongest exception, has been taken to the two sections granted! to persons latterly employed on other estates* and representations have been made by tha Hon. G. Jones, the Hon. T. Y. Duncan, and Mr J. A. Macpherson, all of whom! have insisted that the intention of the Legislature in framing the act last yeas was to provide that only presons employed on estates taken for settlement and deprived! of their employment be granted tenurca without competition. Yesterday, Sir J< G. Ward, in telegraphing to the Hon. Gv Jones, said that these four persons were granted preference under section 80 of tha act, on the recommendation of the Otaga Land Board. The evidence on which such? preference was granted had been referred! by the Minister of Lands to the Solicitors general, and if his advice was that these persons did not come under the act them grants of preference would not be made. To-day there came a telegrajoa from Si* J. G. Ward in which he said : "Re Otekaikd estate. As a result of advice of the la,t« advisers the attention of the Otago Land Board has been called to the fact thsfp apparently their recommendation is outsid.9 the statute and will have to be xecoifi sidered." All, therefore, now depends on ta« ability of two of the persons to prove that} they have been continuously employed) bja the owners of Otekaike for the past fivs

Cheap Bulbs for present planting. Sea Niirito and Blaie's advertisement, pag« 8 of this issue, for speoiallj cheap line* of

years. About the other two theie is no doubt. On being seen to-day on the subject of 'the above telegram, Mr Barron (Chief Commissioner of Crown Lands for Otago) declined to say anything at all on the subject Or to state whether he had received any communication. Residents in the locaJity of Duntroon are freely urging that Mr M'Nab should resign, and that Mr Duncan should be restored to his portfolio, and the evening organ here (a strong Government supporter) refers to the section as the "M'Nab blot." The examination of applicants for the sections of Otekaike at present open is being proceeded with, and the ballot will probably take place to-morrow afternoon. February 7. The position regarding the preference sections is unaltered. Members of the Land Board are understood to hsne stated privately that the preference was given after the assurance of Messrs Campbell and Sons (Limited) had been received that ihe two persons referred to had been in the employ of the company for the statutcy period. In such case it is difficult to see how the preference can be disturbed, for the act appears to permit it. The Hon. G. Jones has received a telegram from the Hon. R M'Nab conveying the following opinion from the Solicitorgeneral: — "On the facts as stated, I am of opinion that Messrs M'Kellar and Mitchell (cases 3 and 4) are not entitled under section 80, and the Minister can withdraw his approval. In my opinion the five years' employment referred to in section 80 means continuous employment on or in connection with the estate -acquired. — Fred Fitchett, Solicitor-general." It will be seen that Dr Firchetr takes the opposite opinion to that of Mr M'N.ib and the Land Board. This division of opinion on a point apparently clearly sta r ed in the section rather enhances the interest of the position.