MORE “LIBERAL” ILLIBERALITY

Temuka Leader, Issue 2299, 31 December 1891, Page 3

MORE “LIBERAL” ILLIBERALITY

TO THE EDITOK. Sxk, —You have on previous occasions called the attention of your numerous readers to the very liberal acts of the present Liberal Ministry, and on one occasion you said that the Hon. John McKenzie was one of its most liberal members. However, I shall, with your permission, point out one or two incidents in the Hon. John’s career as Minister of Lands which reflect but little credit upon either Minister or the man, and which will, I think, conclusively show that he is one of the most illiberal Ministers of Lands it has been the misfortune of Crown tenants to possess. ' I need only make, hi passing, a brief reference to those disgraceful appointments of such men as Campbell and Connell as Crown rangers over industrious and desirable settlers to show how inauspiciously his regime commenced; but, most unfortunately, since that time his policy appears to have been of a hampering and harrassing description towards settlers on Crown lands. Only last week a gross and flagrant act of tyranny took place for which the Minister is responsible. The facts are these: The holder of a grazing run in Southland required to pay his rent at the Land Office in Invercargill, The rent was £ls half-yearly, payable on September Ist and March Ist, and “payable in advance.” The last half-year’s rent was due on Ist September, but owing to the distance the run was from town some little delay took place in forwarding the rent ; but the £ls reached the Invercargill office on October Ist—3l days after it became due. The Receiver of Land Revenue at Invercargill refused to accept the £ls unless the sum of £3l was also paid, being at the rate of £1 for every -day the rent remained unpaid. As the penalty claimed was an absurd .and unjust one under the circumstances, an appeal was made to the Hon. John McKenzie, the Minister for Lands, but this most Liberal Minister of a professedly Liberal Ministry issued his mandate that the penalty be enforced. The Receiver of Land Revenue, acting upon the Hon. John McKenzie s instructions, in a letter dated December 7th intimated to this unfortunate victim of a Liberal Minister that if the payment of the penalty demanded was not made within one week the matter would be brdught before the Land Board, in order to have the run gazetted in terms of clause 188 of “ The Land Act, 1885,” which, stripped of official garbage we settlers so little understand, is plainly this—that unless this unfortunate tenant .paid a penalty of £3l for allowing his rent i' (payable in advance) of £l6 to be in L .arrears 31 days he was to have his run forfeited, and be driven a ruined man frcirar his house and land. It will be generally admitted that such a mode of proceeding may be in keeping with the fetter of an Act of Parliament, bqt few will care to know that such a harsh interpretation of its spirit has been placed upon it by a Minister of the Crown, and L more especially so when one remembers t that a Minister’s . first duty is to treat all m those placed in his power with generosity, 1 scrupulous fairness, and magnanimity. ■' It would be impossible to conceive a more ■ - unjust or unfair proceeding as that con-

I templated against a man so desirable in the interests of settlement. There is but I little wonder if settlement is retarded when settlers are treated in a manner which lacks all the principles of common honesty, equity, and justice. With such illiberal Acts before their eyes, proposed Crown tenants will prefer to remain outside any brief authority or power the Hon. John McKenzie may possess in the position it has pleased the Hon. J. Ballance in his questfonable wisdom to call him.—l am., &c, George J. Wreathall.

[We have seen nothing about this in any of the papers, and therefore we know nothing about it. It looks hard, certainly, but then Ministers cannot break the law. Law-makers must not be lawbreakers. If the law demands that the fine should be inflicted, Mr McKenzie would have to break the law to remit it. Could he do it ? Until we know something more of the matter we cannot, nor should anyone, condemn Mr McKenzie on the angry ipse dixit of Mr Wreathall. —Ed.]