The Temuka Leader. SATURDAY, OCTOBER 18, 1890. DUMMYISM AT THE LEVELS.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2113, 18 October 1890, Page 2

The Temuka Leader. SATURDAY, OCTOBER 18, 1890. DUMMYISM AT THE LEVELS.

DxrßiNGt the three years Mr Ballance was Minister of Lands not a word was heard with regard to dummyism, but no sooner did the present Minister assume power than the system at once became rampant. This is made plain by the evidence given by Mr J. H. Baker, (Commissioner of Crown Lands, Christchurch), before the Parliamentary Committee, which inquired into the matter last session. Mr Baker opened his statement as follows : —“ Ihe alleged cases of dummyism all came under the Land Act Amendment of 1887.” This is the Act passed by the present Government, and, therefore, all blame for the disgraceful transactions ef the past few years must rest on their shoulders. Mr Barker also gave evidence as to what occurred on the Levels Estate, where applications were put in by Messrs Orbell, Batello, Lyall, and all the shepherds, nine persons in all, and when they got the land the money was paid “by cheques drawn on the National Bank of New Zealand, but all of them were drawn by,,the Manager of the .'bank.” This fact is worthy of note. Por instance, one of these put in an application for a piece of land, and made a declaration that it was for his own use and benefit. That declaration is the same as an oath. He; (applicant) got the land, but instead of giving his own cheque for it, Mr Baker got a cheque from the Manager of the National Bank of New Zealand, just as if it had been the Manager of the Bank who had bought the land. All the land bought by the managers and shepherd’s on the Levels estate was paid for in this way, and this of course makes the whole thing suspicious. If the servants of thecompany bought theland for their own use they would pay for it with their own money, but they did not. i hey bought it for the benefit of the land company, and as the land company could not give its own cheque for it, so it made a cat’s-paw of its banker to manage the affair. No effort has been made to punish these people, notwithstanding that they are liable to punishment for making a false declaration. Prom the evidence of Mr Thomas Brydone, superintendent of the New Zealand and Australian Land Company, w® get an endorsement of this view of the ease. He said he stayed in Timaru for some days before the sale, and had conversation with several people about these lands, but denied having asked any of them to put in applications. In reply to further questions he said: “ I never asked them did they apply for the land in the company’s interest. Well, the land they have got I do not think any of them could work. I think the chances are they did not intend to hold the land themselves after they got it.” Then, in reply to question 442, Mr Brydone says that the land had been taken up, whether by outsiders or employes, to resell it to the company, and, after being pressed hard, and giving evasive answers, he at last admitted that some of them might understand that the land would be taken off their hands, but ho denied there was a written agreement to that effect. He, however, evaded the question as to verbal agreement. All his evidence, and also thvt of Mr Baker, went to show that dummyism was deliberately carried out with regard to this land, but, as Mr Baker pointed out, it is very questionable whether the law could punish those who took part in it. The point is; the purchaser makes a declaration that the land is “for his own useand benefit,’’and if he happened to get ten shillings on his bargain from the Land Company the Court might say he benefited to the extent of ten shillings and was not liable to be punished for making a false declaration. Still, when we find the servants of the company applying, and a banker paying for the land, under auch peculiar circumstances, it is not at all unreasonable to suspect that both the company and its servants ( conspired to break the law, and we think the case ought to be tested in , 3ourt. At any rate, it is a disgraceful 1 peace of business, and ought to be 1 jnough to open the eyes of the people ( :o the necessity of keeping men of * :his stamp in the back ground. |