Rangitikei Advocate. WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 6, 1909. EDITORIAL NOTES.

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXXIV, Issue 9338, 6 January 1909, Page 4

Rangitikei Advocate. WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 6,1909. EDITORIAL NOTES.

IT is a somewhat unsatisfactory feature of the meetings of the Educational Institute, or at any rate of the Press Association reports of the meetings, that so much time is wasted in complaints as to salaries. It is quite recently that a considerable increase was made in the salaries of teachers; they have long holidays, a secure tenure, and a pension awaiting them at the close of their career, far larger than their contributions to the pension fund would provide, and yet at every meeting the chief topic of interest appears to be the lowness of the remuneration to teachers and the slowness of promotion. We think that the public Will speedily become weary of these constant complaints and come to the conclusion that dissatisfied teachers should seek some other form of employment where their great abilities would receive the monetary recompense which they consider as due to them. The teachers, perhaps, hardly recognise that there is a strong feeling in the country that our educational system is in a most unsatisfactory Sjtate, and that though a portion of the blame may rest with syllabus or the unreasonable demands of inspectors, the greater part of the evil is due to the fact that many of the teachers are incompetent and untrained. The reformation of this state of affairs can best come from within the profession itself, and the educational institute should recognise that the best way to secure the sympathy aud support public is for its members to devote themselves earnestly to the work of raising the standard of intelligence and enthusiasm among the teachers themselves. Progress in this direction will soon produce results which will show themselves plainly in the teaching, and any grievances which still exist will 'then be likely to receive ‘.redress at the hands of a public which is not ungenerous in rewarding good work.

THE insecurity of any other tenure than the freehold has been again illustrated in the case of Begg v. the King. The Otago Dally Times points out that Mr Justice Williams in this case has held that a lessee has no right of a renewal of his lease unless it is determined that the laud or portion of it is again to he let as a small grazing run. If the Government decides, as it has done in the the property occupied by Mr Begg, that the land, instead of being offered upon the same tenure as that on which it was previously held, shall be subdivided for closer settlement and offered under the renewable lease system, the tenant has no right to any preferential treatment. We do not suppose that there can be any doubt that the interpretation which Mr Justice Williams has placed upon the law represents the intention of the Legislature. But applicants for Crown lands do not always go to the Statute Book for information respecting the nature of the conditions upon which the land they desire is to be held, and it is possible that some of them might not be much the wiser if they had access to the law on the point. They conclude, quite reasonably, that the information which is circulated by the Government for the benefit of applicants for land is comprehensive enough and reliable, enough to afford 5 them all the knowledge that is requisite for them to possess respecting the matter. It so happens, however, that a Crown Lands Guide, which was issued shortly after the .passage of the Land Act of 1885, was distinctly misleading on this very point of the right of a tenant to a renewal of the lease of a grazing run. An Bast Coast settler, says the Poverty Bay Herald, who finds himself now in the same position as Mr Begg occupies, complains that this official publication beguiled him into an entirely false sense of security. “The object of this little publication,” it was said in the guide, “is to afford, more especially to persons who may be ignorant of the land system of the Dominion, such general information as to the character and localities of Crown lands and the terms and conditions on which they may be obtained as will enable those “in quest of land to set about its selection without much trouble.” And under the heading “Small Grazing Runs” the Guide said: “The lease is for twenty-one years with the first offer at the end of that term of a renewal for a second term of twenty-one years. If the offer is refused the lease is put up to auction, burdened with the valuation for improvements. ” This, as will be realised, was a distinct misrepresentation of the terms of the lease, and the discovery that their lease carried with it no such rights as they were led to believe it did has clearly involved the occupiers of these runs in a great hardship. The fact that applicants for small grazing run leases in those days were misled by the official pronouncement respecting the conditions of the leases does seem to afford them some moral claim for consideration at the present time.