THE CANTERBURY RUNS.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1865, 14 March 1889, Page 3

THE CANTERBURY RUNS.

(Omaru Mail.) i ( A paragraph in the Christenurch 1 Press states that the Canterbury runs will be advertised as soon as the Government have completed the necessary arrangements; that plans of the land and posters are being prepared, and will be displayed at the various railway stations as soon as they are ready; that in the meanwhile any information required may be obtained at the Land Office, Christchurch ; that the sale of the runs will take place at the Land Office in Christchurch on the 29th April; and that all sales will be advertised at least one month before the sales take place as required by the Act. The paragraph concludes as follows .—" The extent of the country which the Commissioners have had personally # to inspect, has prevented the information being put before the public at an earlier date." This may be accepted as an official announcement and explanation. The Government's excuses are absurd. We have a right to ask why the Government so long delayed to make the necessary arrangements in connection with the sale of so vast a territory. When the Government say that "the extent of country which the Commissioners have had personally to inspect has prevented the information being put before the public at an earlier date," they confess that such information ought to have been available earlier, and that they would have given it earlier had it not been for the delay which has arisen in regard to the classification by the Commissioners. But why was the classification driven off till the last moment ? The fact that the Commissioners could not get through their work in time to admit of information concerning the lands to be sold to be put before the public earlier is a proof that the Commissioners did not start their inspection soon enough. Therefore the Government are chargeable with having postponed, a very important operation in connection with the disposal of the runs, to the prejudice of the colony.. Thig is yet another instance in proof of the unfitness of the Minister for Lands to be entrusted with the management of the public estate. If a servant in private employment had been guilty of such neglect, he would run the risk of being cashiered. But Mr Eichardson is a public servant, and the public, however indignant they may be, have at present no way of reaching him. There is no other alternative, therefore, we suppose, than to suffer Mr Eichardson's policy of favoritism and blundering till they, in the natural course of events, sink him into political oblivion.