THE PELORUS GUARDIAN, AND MINERS' ADVOCATE TUESDAY, 9th APRIL, 1907. A SLAP IN THE FACE.

Pelorus Guardian and Miners' Advocate., Volume 8, Issue 29, 9 April 1907, Page 4

THE PELORUS GUARDIAN, AND MINERS' ADVOCATE TUESDAY, 9th APRIL, 1907. A SLAP IN THE FACE.

The Marlborough Land Board have received from the Minister for Lands the snub direct, and it is not necessary to add that the Minister does not mince matters when he makes up his mind that a certain course must be taken. We refer to his decision (referred to elsewhere) on the subject of a suggested transfer of a section in the Flaxbourne Estate from the holder —who, on his admission, knows practically nothing about farming—to a man who is a practical farmer and a strenuous worker. A majority of the members of the Land Board—and hard-headed, practical men they are, with a knowledge of farming conditions gained by actual experience for many years—at once recognised that here were no circumstances that needed the application of the theoretical clauses of the Land Act: nothing but commonsense was required to equitably arrange the matter and at the same time to conserve the State’s interest in the section referred to. It is unfortunate that the Minister’s reputation for caution was not sustained in this instance. The letter of the Act may not have been carried out in its entirety, but he surely ought to have known that the men on the spot were better qualified to judge than he as to the merits of the application. This outside interference with the functions of Land Boards not only weakens their already limited powers, but acts as a very powerful argument in favour of the demand for tho freehold. The Minister can rest assured that his ill-advised decision in this matter will gain more converts for the freehold system than he has obtained for the Land Bill during his recent pilgrimage through the colony. Prom the tone of the Commissioner’s argument at the time the case was dealt with by the Land Board it appears to us that the chief objection he had—and it is the objection that all Commissioners bring forth—to tho transfer was the amount that Mr Sharpe was to pay for the “goodwill” of the section. We have consistently opposed the principle that the Government or the Land Board have any right to regulate the price that an incoming ‘tenant shall pay. He has to satisfy the Board that he is able to fulfil the conditions of the-lease, and there their inquisitiveness should end. We have never yet heard any member of a Land Board or a Commissioner of Crown Lands give a valid reason why a Land Board should interfere in such a matter, and we do not think there is any reason that will “hold wafcOr.” It cannot possibly matter to the Board whether a man pays £IOOO for the goodwill or £IOO-the State always | have the land as the payI ment of the rent; and if the incoming, tenant considers that the unearned increment is worth the greater or the less sum that is his business. This aspect of these transfers is constantly cropping up, and yet no action is taken by the Department to decide it one way or the other. The only equitable way out of the difficulty is to make the lease a “ free ” lease in the senese that, subject to the Board being satisfied as to the bona fides of a prospective tenant, the holder would be free to transfer the goodwill at his own price. In the case under review, the Board are between the devil and the deep sea, thanks to the Minister’s metaphorical “ dirty left,”