PUBLIC TRUSTEES.

Patea Mail, 5 August 1880, Page 2

PUBLIC TRUSTEES.

The trouble about the llecrcation ground at Patea is likely to be set at rest by the appointment of a body of trustees, in whom the care of the ground is to be vested, under powers of the Public Domains Act. They would have power to regulate the use of the ground, and to make bye-laws with penalties for preventing abuse of public property. The idea that anybody has a right to do what pleases himself on a public recreation ground is not based on law or custom. The public would cease to have any common rights or privileges, unless a distinction were observed between use and abuse. Notices are usually posted up in public domains set apart for pleasure, to this effect: “ The public are expected to protect what is intended for public enjoyment, ” There would be no disposition to disregard this wholesome rule in Patea, if there were no private rights'or claims in dispute. It is a fact that the funds of a particular club have been expended in preparing a small portion of the Eccreation Ground as a cricket-pitch ; and it is a fact that this has been done under official sanction which was deemed to be a protection

ngainst avoidable injury. Equitable considerations seem to require that this expenditure shall be protected in a reasonable way, but not as a recognition of exclusive rights. It should be done by allotting adequate space for any public games that cannot be safely played on or near the cricket-pitch.

The Town Board have asked the Government to place the ground under the powers of the Public Domains Act. The Government reply by assenting to the proposal, bnt suggesting two conditions. The first is that the grounds shall be placed under a body of trustees “ who will take an interest in impioving and planting them, and making them available for horticulture, arboriculture, sports, &c. ” The second condition is probably right in the intention, bnt is expressed in so clumsy a manner as to raise a doubt whether any responsible officer of Government can have dictated the language. That condition is, not that the Town Board shall be trustees, nor that the public shall be invited to elect trustees, but that the Town Board, which makes the application, shall be set aside, its control of the land shall be put an end to, and a body of nominees shall be placed in authority over this public ground, and have absolute control of it

for ever. The Government letter asks the Chairman of the. Town Board to confer with the Chairman of the County Council, and “jointly nominate five or seven gentlemen who are known to take a personal interest in the objects for which public domains are formed. ” Would it be a charity to describe this Government proposal as a stroke of statesmanship ? The principle of this kind of statesmanship is clear enough. It is this. Yon, the Town Board, are elected by the ratepayers, and want this ground placed under your control for the .public benefit. But the Government prefer to have public property controlled, not by trustees elected through the public, ami amenable to public opinion at short intervals, but by a board of nominees whose continuance in office will be independent of public opinion ; for the Government know from experience that the public are better served by having their affairs taken out of their control altogether, and transferred to “ five or seven gentlemen who arc known to take a special personal interest,” etcetera. If this is not a bad principle for Government to lay down, what is it ? Who are the Government bnt servants of the public; and by what principle or precedent do they advise the transfer of a public trust to a body who arc to be independent of those who appointed them ? Would the Government like to be made independent of those who appointed them ? If that is their principle of government, lot them proclaim it like men, and the electors will then have a plain choice put before them.

Then this importation of a “ special personal interest” is so injudicious, that members of the Town Board may well be excused for protesting against it with angry vigor. Personal or special interests are not the kind of interests to be represented by a body of nominated trustees. The interests are the publicl interests ol the Patca township, and any other intsrosts are out of the question. Some members of the Town Board expressed a fear, in which wo join, that by not accepting the Government plan in toto , an excuse may be afforded for not getting the matter completed out of hand. That is a cogent reason, but there is a stronger one against it. That is, the mischief which may result from assenting to a bad principle of nominee management. For if the Town Board have this land taken from their control, and transferred to nominees who have a personal interest, and that sort of nonsense, the Town Board will soon bo fighting with the nominees on the question of expending ratepayers’ money on land over which they have no control. That would be a ridiculous result of this over-wise Government plan of nominee control. If the ratepayers are to tax themselves for that land, for improving and maintaining it, they must have control of it. Nothing could be clearer

than that. Yet the Government propose the bad plan of taking the Recreation Ground out of the ratepayers’ control, and then taxing them to carry out the whims of nominees who cannot be changed when they go wrong.