NEW GUINEA LAND SCANDALS

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXXIII, Issue 9110, 1 April 1908, Page 5

NEW GUINEA LAND SCANDALS

Press Association—Copyright, r Received April 1, 9,10 a.m. Melbourne, April 1.

Papers relating to the suspension of Mr Drummond, late Acting Chief Government Surveyor in Papua, have been tabled in the Federal House. The suspension followed on a charge of having attempted to evade an order of the Executive Council that it was not considered desirable that officers of the Land Department should apply for land.

The statement of the case furnished by Judge Murray, Acting Administrator, shows that in 1907 a syndicate consisting of Messrs Drummond, Pinney, Watt and Mac Alpine, was formed to take up land for plantation purposes. Messrs Drummond and Pinney belonged to" the Lands Department, Watt to Treasury and Mac Alpine was not in the Gov-ft-rnmerit service. Ardley, who came in later, was a district surveyor. Drummond and Pinney applied for two adjoining blocks of 250 acres and the applications came before the Executive Council and were refused. The Government offices then closed for the Christmas holidays and immediately after they re-opened an application was put* in for |the same land by Watt and MacAlpine,Jand it was a question whether this”application was not also on behalf of the syndicate. The minutes of the Land Board showed that the application of Drummond and Pinney and Watt and Mac Alpine, in which to the knowledge of Mr Stainforth Smith, Drummond bad an interest, were recommended at a meeting of the Land Board at which no one was present, but Drummond. Judge Murray added “to have a Government officer sitting on a Land Board fqr the consideration of his own application was practically the same thing as to allow a Magistrate to try a case in which he was a party. The blame for this extraordinary proceeding attaches in his opinion more to Mr Drummond’s than to Mr Smith, as it maybe urged in Mr Smith’s defence that his total want of experience of departmental procedure compelled him to rely very largely on Mr Drummond’s advice.”

Mr Deakin in a minute said he considered the proposed fine of £25 a wholly inadequate punishment for Pinney. On March 19th Judge Murray replied that the Executive Council had decdied to reduce Pinney* s salary by £25 per annum, and if after a year the head of the Department reported favourably his full salary would be restored. This ends the correspondence.