THE PUBLIC WORKS AMENDMENT ACT.

Waikato Times, Volume XXXI, Issue 2553, 20 November 1888, Page 2

THE PUBLIC WORKS AMENDMENT ACT.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir,—ln your leader of the 13th inst., you state, that up to the present time Mr Mitchelson's proposed " Public Works Act Amendment Bill" has only received condemnation at the hands of two of our local governing bodies, namely, the Wai kato County Council, and Kinkiriroa Road Board. It has occurred to me, that seeing that these two boards are comuosed of gentlemen eminently well qualified to know what is good for the"country in which they live, and are on the whole, sensible men, that there must have been something gravely wrong in this proposed Amendment Bill, something altogether unsuitable to the needs of the district, to have received this condemnation. I have not seen the Bill myself, but understand the object of it ie to compel all landowners to clear and stubb g>rse, briar, etc. from off their land, while Crown lands go free. Shonld this become law, it will I believe, have a tendency to inflict a great hardship upon small holders who are unfortunate enough to have the nuisance on their lands, the eradication of which would be simply a question of time if left to themselves. Independent of that, there is the principle of compulsion underlying the Bill, which is not at all suited to this free country or the times in which we live. ''An Englishman's house is his castle " and fnrany Government or body (if men to dictate to a free people what they shall grow, or not grow upon-their own property, is not (o bo tolerated upon any grounds of expediency. There are countries in the world when crops of furze (Ireland for instance, are grown as food for cattle, when young, and after attaining maturity are made into other marketable commodities, again they are' grown for the purpose of draining and enriching the unused bog lands of that country, which they do in a remarkable manner, but there the law piovides machinery by which all ownors of property facing roads are compelled to keep such roads clear of the furze, and also from becoming a nuisance to their neighbours by it spreading on to adjoining lands. A similar Act is all we require here, and as long as any property owner keeps his crop, be it what it may, rigidly with in his own boundary, tho law has no right to interfere. The rabbit nuisance is not at all a paralell case, and should not be legislated far on similar lines as the doing of the mischievious bunny is very often outside of the control of man, doing more damage in one night than furze would in years, and requires special legislation to keep him within bounds. As I said before all we require here for the furze nuisance is a simple Act, clear and concise, laid down in such terms that no lawyer could drive the proverbial coach and four through it, to compel all property holders to keep it within their own boundaries, if they chose to grow it, the Government being compelled to do the same with their Crown lands. This would in a short time do away with the furze nuisance, as far as regards public roads and adjoining properties, the exigencies of the times alone determining how long it would pay property holders to grow it as a crop upon their respective holdings. With regard to absentees, a clause.,inserted in the Bill, making the property responsible for all expenses incurred in keeping frontages clear and simplifying the mode of procedure in our Courts, for recovery of same, would doubtless meet the necessities of the case. This being a nuWic Bill, and open to fair criticism, has impelled me to write upon this matter, and it is to be hoped that the different public bodies will weigh this matter well before allowing it to pass into law. Should it do so, unless considerably modified, it will place an already struggling community at a great disadvantage, and tend to some extent to stop free trade in land.—Yours respectfully. A. Scott.