Tuapeka Times. AND GOLDFIELDS REPORTER AND ADVERTISER. WEDNESDAY, MARCH 25, 1874. "MEASURES. NOT MEN."

Tuapeka Times, Volume VII, Issue 341, 25 March 1874, Page 2

Tuapeka Times. AND GOLDFIELDS REPORTER AND ADVERTISER. WEDNESDAY, MARCH 25, 1874. "MEASURES. NOT MEN."

The advertisements appearing from time to time in our columns leave very little doubt on the mind of the general reader that dummyism prevails to a considerable extent in the Tuapeka district, and that our land laws are subject to a kind of manipulation which scarcely accords wi f .h the submission due to law. Names and patches of land illustrative of this remark it would be invidious to mention, yet the thing is sufficiently known to the parties to these transactions, and sufficiently spotted by the general public. We regret the practice not simply as a bar to the settlement of those lands that are open for that purpose, but as indicating a disregard for the law itself. That is not what we could desire it to be ; still, it is only right that it be respected. We have -oo mutinies soßii names attached to the suspicion of dummyism that has not a little surprised us, because from such we certainly expected t<> find a higher regard to the ititegrity of the law. As the citizens of a free country, we have the liberty to agitate and aim at reform of the laws, and this certainly is what ought to be done by fchose who are dissatisGed with the law, and not to tax their ingenuity to evade it. If this should become a prevailing feature of the community, as it undoubtedly is in the matter of duramyism and sly-groggeries, it will tend to a general' demoralisation of the people. But we do not only condemn this evasion of 'the law. Could not something more be done in arrest of the evil in the administration of it 1 Tf the law itself be right which allows only 200 acres as a maximum to any applicant for an occupancy of the waste lands, then assuredly it is the business of the Government or their agent, the Warden, to see to it that no means are taken to evade the law. Objections in writing 'are required, but they must also be supported in proper person, or by an agent. J3ut what is done by the Warden when objections are forwarded but not supported by the person or agent ? Is the" person officially informed that he is required to support his objections as above indicated ? We ask this because we lately met with the case of a party objecting to dummyism in writing, not being aware that his own presence or that of his agent in the Warden's Court was required to support the same. Lax administration of the law is just as bad as ingenious devices to evade ic. Should this practice increase on our hands, and there can be no doubt that it is becoming more frequent everyday, then it is but right to warn the parties interested that what has been obtained by means of a fraud may be unmercifully torn from the grasp of the holders. Whole runs had been absorbed in thip illegal way in Victoria, and those who had swallowed them up to prevent them being occupied by settlers were forced to disgorge them. Should a Ministry find their way to power in this country of a similar character to that in Victoria, the parties now holding on a tenure of dummyism may come to find themselves bereft of all but their legal 200 acres. But we cannot say we are satisfied with the law as it is. We consider a maximum of 200 acres too little for a man whose talent lies not in plodding and toiling with his own hands, but in arranging and planning work for others. Under the deferred payment system we go in for nothing less than the Victorian measure, 320 acres good, and 640 aores inferior land. Such a measure might do something to render this evasion of the law inexcusable. We would further advocate the leasing of the land in larger blocks, of from 2000 to 4000 acres, ior a term of years. Such an arfange- ( ment would place a class of men u^on fch.e

land midway between the large runholder and the settler of 50 acres— a class that we feel persuaded would be of immense advantage to the country at large. s The " Daily Times," of Thursday last, has an article anticipatory of certain changes in the means of supporting the Dunedin Hospital being proposed at next session of the Provincial Council. Tt will be remembered that last .session the subject was brought before the Council by Dr. Webster, who, so far as we can recollect, desired to see the Dunedin institution placed on a similar footing to the up-country hospitals. The following quotation from the article in the ' ' Times," will give our readers the gist of the arguments used by the writer :— " We are not aware," says he, " whether Dr. Webster intends to follow up his action of last yoar by any attempted legislation during the coming session. If he does, we trust the Provincial Council will not be led away by his proposal, or induced to throw the burden of thesupport of such an institution upon the charitable public of Dunedin. The country hospitals, to which it is the fashion to liken our own, do not really stand upon the same footing, inasrmich as the cases which are taken to them represent for the most part merely the average amount of sickness naturally to be found within their local boundaries. The case is very different with Dunedin. In the port and capital of an entire Province must necessarily be a larger number of sick cases, much larger than the population would naturally supply, and it would not be fair to ask the wealthy and charitable of Dunedin to contribute to the care and cure of those whose sickness arises from beyond their control. If an examination were to be held into the cases at present in the Dunedin Hospital, it would he found that many of the patients had come from far distant country districts in the hope at least of obtaining more able care than they could elsewhere have got." We quite demur to the statement made by this writer, who affirms that the upcountry institutions do not stand in a similar position to that of the Dnnedin Hospital. The proportion of country patients who take aclvautaje of the Dunedin Hospital for the superior skill there to be obtained is extremely small. Such cases do occur, but they are very rai'e indeed. The same argument might be urged against the Government requiring country hospitals to be partially supported by the " wealthy and the charitable " of the country population^ as that made uso of in the article referred to. On many occasions the conntry hospitals have persons in them who, so far as being permanent residents of the country districts, cannot claim the hospitality of those institutions. We refer to the floating population to be found especially on the goldiields. Further, the goldiields, from the dangerous and precarious nature of the employment of a large number' of the inhabitants, furnish many special cases for hospital relief not to be met with in the ordinary occupations of a town life. But if the quttsciou weie le&uiti t»y numbers, we believe it would be found that the average number of indoor patients treated in the country hospitals during the year would be equal, if not in excess, of the number in Dunedin during the same length of time. The writer of the article in review thinks that every purpose would be served "if the 'wards in the Hospital were arranged upon a graduated scale, not giving less care to any than is given to all now, but permitting those who are unfortunately compelled to go there to pay for an increased tariff of privacy, comfort, or even luxuries, the result would be a saving to the public pnr*e, and a great extension of the usefulness of the Institution." While we believe the adoption in the Dunedin Hospital of such a scale would effect a considerable saving to the Government, and give those an opportunity to pay who were able to do so, we can see no reason why the public of Dunedin should be altogether relieved from contributing towards the support of those who receive the benefit of the Hospital and are unable to pay for their treatmenr. The country population at present have not only to support their own Hospitals, but are also taxed for the support of the Dunetlin one. We see no reason why the " wealthy .and charitable " of the country should be asked to prevent the "wealthy and charitable" of Dunedin from exercising their benevolence amongst their own poor. There i 3 a manifest injustice in the distinction drawn between the Dunedin and the country Hospitals. As regards an additional subscription list being thrust upon Dunpdin, we may remark that the inhabitants of the goldfields have perhaps as many calls made upon their benevolence as the residents of the city. Scarcely a week passes bnt some subscription list, or other is hawked from house to house. If it can be shown, as the writer in the "Daily Times" tvould have us believe, that the pressure upon the Dunedin institution is greater in proportion to the population than it is upon the country Hospitals, the case could be easily met by giving the Dunedin Hospital a larger subsidy — say, £2 to £1, as in the case of the TJenevolent Institution. On these grounds therefore we trust Dr. Webster will bring forward his motion. Should he do so, he will certamly receive the support of all the country members, and we believe of a considerable number of the city members as well. At all events we can say this much, he will receive the support of all who love fair play.

a