POMAHAKA DOWNS.

Otago Witness, Volume 11, Issue 2280, 11 November 1897, Page 29

POMAHAKA DOWNS.

November B.— Were it not that other places are suffering equally with ourselves from the terrible weather. I should be inclined to say that

the clerk.of the weather had taken up arms against us with the intention of clearing us oiitr of the place should the Land Board not be able to do bo. Certainly the board is making a move now, and not "before it is time, seeing that some are four or five rents behindhand. That is a little bit beyond a joke, I must say. Had "Wiese settlers been paying up until quite recently, and then, after they had given the land a. fair trial, said they ould not get the rent out of it, they would have been listened to ; but it is quite evident that they settled down with the full intention of paying no rent. They simply spoil those of us who have been paying up to the best of our ability, and when we find that the land will not pay the rent and let us live, nur application for a reductiou is laughed at. " Why," the Minister will say, "Look at them! They are four and five rents behind. It is evident they never intended to pay the rent." A Government official said to a friend of mine not long ago that he believed the rent was too high, but that it wasn't safe to sympathise with them (meaning the settlers). I verily believe that the Hod. John M'Keczie himself knows it to be too high, but he dare not. bring on a reduction just now. Correspondence — I am glad to see by Mr Dodds's letter in this last issue of the Witness that he had no intention of having a knock at the Pomahaka settlers. So far ho good, and I thank him for his sympathy for the struggling settler. But hi 3 argument about the settlers who take up land under the Land for Settlement Act is hardly right. We are just in the same position as the farmers who rent their farms from the landlords in the oM country, where reductions in rent have often been given up to 25 per cent., and possibly more. The best of valuers may make mistakes, and there is no doubt, as shown very clearly in Mr M'ttregor's letter, that this land has not turned out what it was expected lo_ do. No doubt there are patches of very good ridge land on the estate, but taken as a whole ifc has not come up to expectations. The colony bought this land through its valuers, and the colony ought to do the same thing as the farmer who buys a horse, and finding it not up to his lequirements sells it again at a loss— write the loss off to the debit of profit and loss account, and ro on smibug. I don't profess to be,a judge of land, teeing that it is only lately that I started farming, but I can keep books with any other man, and they will show very clearly whether the land is paying. If y lust balance sheet is anything but an eucouraging document, and, as I alone am concerned in it, there are no bogus entries. Like Mr Uodcts. I was very pleas d with the Land for Settlement Act, but there is one part of it that I do not c-xaclly love— that which refers to the value for improvement 1 ?. I understand that ope of our gettleis made inquiries with the intention of giving up bis section. I find that the value of the improvements is what the' ranger like 3to put on them, and that th« settler is not paid for th«se improvements until a ne»v tenaut takes up the land. Bat what-is far worse, is that should no new lenaut appear the value of the improvements will be reduced, and will continue to be reduced until the section- js at last taken up, so that a settler leaving his Lection with, say, £100 worth of improvements may eventually be p\id off with a "fiver." 1 should hope I am wrong in thi«, and would bs very glad to be told bo. I fear the editor will be cutting me short if I write any more just now, so what other news I have I must keep till noxt tim?.