THE LAND COMMISSION.

Press, Volume LXII, Issue 12172, 18 April 1905, Page 8

THE LAND COMMISSION.

A SITTING AT CHEVIOT.

SECURITY OF TENURE WANTED

BY CROWN TENANTS

(SPECIAt TO "THE TRESS.") CHEVIOT. April 17. After a long and uncomfortable drive in the rain from Scargill to Cheviot, the Land Commission arrived at the latter place shortly after 4 o'clock, and proceeded to take evidence almost immediately.

A somewhat large number of Cheviot settlers awaited the arrival of the Commission, and many were present in the Town Hall while the witnesses were being examined. Additional interest was taken in tho visit oi tho Commission from tho fact that Mr Geo. Forbes, the acting chairman, was hiuiaclt a Cheviot hur.ler.

John Vaughan, the nrst. witness examined, stated that he farmed 300 acres tit Cheviot, and part of it he held under the li'ase-in-porpetuity system at 11s -Id per acre rental, and the remainder was freehold. He had no grievance whatever; ho was satisfied with the leaso-in-p'jrpetiiity system under the present conditions, and he was .satisfied witli the present constitution of the Land Boards, but lu> would liko a change made in tho cropping conditions. Ho hnd boon working tho land in accordance with a certain plan which had improved the land, but tho method ho haa adopted was not permitted by the regulations. There \ai not a single Cheviot settler that would materially injure, the land by taking too much out of it. Ho thought the. ballot sys-1-om had worked out satisfactorily. The present grouping system, lie considered, was an absurd one, and its only advantage* was to savo tinio. That system was certainly not favourable to the settlors, for, under it. n man might dniw a section that ho did not want. The settlors of Cheviot generally condemns! the grouping system. Tho land values at Cheviot had increased gradually, und where settlers had conic in lately tho transfer of land had been in favour of the. seller, and ho felt that in some cases unduly high prices had been obtained, so great was tho anxiety of somo to get tho land. Tf the present prices of sheep continued, the amount paid for the land would not bo excessive, but he expected that thoro would bo a drop At present there was no inducement to the Cheviot settlors to grow grain crops. So far tlioro had been no trouble with tho Lnnd Board ovor the cropping regulations/ but he considered that the Boards should have the option of fining for a breach of those regulations, instead of evicting the tenant, and. in the interests of posterity, the Government should retain the remaining portion of the land of the colony. Ho considered that the tenants should not l>o given the option of reducing the capital values of their holdings in the interest of the private individual. Such a practice would be favourable to the Cheviot settlers, who would, no doubt, consider it a satisfactory investment of their money to use it in acquiring the freehold, but he was opposed to such a course on tho grounds of public policy. As soon as the adjoining estates could be purchased at a reasonable price the Government should acquire them, but the prices were now too high. In thft interests of the State, the lease holdings should be subject to re-valuation, but in the interests of the private individuals they should not. He could see no objection to a man depositing his spare capital with the Government, in order that the interest might be put against the rest. A man might very reasonably be allowed to pay off the value of his improvements.

Thomas Gee stated that ho was tho holder of a lease-in-perpetuity, and that he represented the grazing holders in Cheviot. He desired to bring before tho Commission a petition from the holders of grazing runs, who desired the right of renewal of their leases, with re-valuation to l>o settled by arbitration. The petition had been assented to unanimously by the grazing runholders. The witness then read the petition. The petitioners stated that (hey desired to bring under tho notice of the Commission the unsatisfactory and unsettled condition of their leases, which wero for twenty-one years, without tho right of renewal. The Cheviot estate was the first acquired by the Government, and the latter had found out. by experience, that a more seci»3 tenure was desirable, and in all recent settlements had granted twenty-one years' leases, with the right of renewal. That right they were anxious to get, for they felt that no good purpose could be served by turning out one settlor merely to ptit in another, particularly as tho original settler had the pioneering work to do. The petitioners concluded by asking the Commission to urge the Government to grant them the right of renewal upon re-valuation. Continuing, the witness said that tho holders of tho grazing runs were all agreed upon the renewal question, for they all thought that the right of renewal should be granted to them. As titno went on it would not be to the advantage of the holders to improve their holdings, but if they possessed tho right of renewal it would then be .to their advantage to keep the land improved, consequently the tenants did not got the «anie out of the land as they would if they possessed a nioro secure tenure. His opinion was that tho whole of the Cheviot Estate had been cut up too small, und there was not one run in Cheviot that would carry 4000 whereas at Highfield several grazing runs could carry that number. He believed that the Government were finding out that the estate \\fid been too much subdivided. Each sett lei* should have sufficient land to carry 2000 ewes. Very substantial improvements were being put on tho grazing runs, and tho holders were consequently anxious as to' the fate of their holdings. David Archibald stated th;U ho he!d 4418 acres on the lease-in-perpotuity system nt an annual rental of £733. What he wanted was security of tonure, for it was not good for him, nor for anybody else, not to havo tho right of renewal. The re-valuation system however, should be subject to a certain limitation, in order that an industrious leaseholder might be protected. The. re-valuation should be made by arbitrators ; he did not think tho present system of re-valuation was a sound one. If he was a rich man ho would look for a freehold property, and ho believed that the time would come when the treehold would bo granted to the settlers. If it had not been for tho Land for Settlement Ad he could not have got on to the lartd. Ho had about 4000 sheep, but only cropped sufficient of the land for horses and sheep.

John Olliver. the holder of a grazing run of 3044 acres, supported tlio petition presented by Mr Gee. If he sw his way to get it lie preferred the freehold out and out. He thought the freehold, to be obtained by the deferred payment system, was the best for Crown tenants. * The improvements for which out-going tenants were to be compensated did not include tree planting and surface sowing. He thought it would be a wise thing for the State to give the tenants the freehold, for the money now borrowed in London could then be obtained in the colony. At sis o'clock the Commission adjourned until half-past seven.

After the dinner adjournment, George Pulley, cheep-farmer, holding IUO acree, stated that he had only a bhort lease, and when he possession he had to epend £45 for fencing, which he did not

I expect to havo to spend, and had also been put to other expense. His lease was for three years with a right of renewal for another three years, and ho was allowed no compensation for improvements. His slaughter-house and accommodation for shearers had been condemned, and he could not see his way to effect the necessary improvoirente in view of his tenure. He considered that married men with families should have a preference when land was being settled, and that a man's children should rank as capital. John Fleming, grazing runholder, stated that he occupied about 1400 acres; he was satisfied with the conditions in his lease relative to compensation, but he considered that a tenant ehoiild bo compensated for putting the land down in grass. His opinion was that the, best tenure was a twenty-one years' lease with the right of purchase at the end of that term. Ho would not lie satisfied with the right of renewal with re-valuation, for he would desire to make the land his own. The grazing runs hnd increased very little in value. He was one of the original Cheviot settlers, and ho was not altogether satisfied when he took up the lease, for he had previously tried to get a 999 years' tenure; lie would not have been inclined to take up the freehold then because he had not the freehold feeling. He could not understand wily tho twenty-one years' leaseholders .should not gi»t the ton per cent, rebate, with the 909 years' tenants. He thought*that somo of the large grazing runs would stand subdividing. There was ono back country run -containing about 175.000 acres, situated at the head < of the Waiaii. and belonging to tin* Crown, which could very well be. subdivided. At present it was held by one man. There were other properties such as Stonyhurst and Parnassus which would bo suitable for subdivision. Ho objected to the examination of applicants for sections by the Land Board. The o'-iginal Cheviot settlers could not bo subjected to tho examination, and yet 4he settlers had turned out to be very practical and successful men. l\. Cracroft Wilson stated that he held 1286 acres on a grazing lease, and he would like to have the right of renewing his lease, but if he could get the freehold ho would prefer it. He would not expect to get his place at its present value, for values might fall. Mr Gee. in supplementing- his previous evidence, said that it would be more satisfactory if the option of purchase were given. He considered that Cheviot had been cut up into too small areas, for some settlers had only 100 acres, and that was not sufficient for a man t« make a living upon under the leasehold system. If a tenant, however, could purchase his land gradually, he could, in his -younger days, put aside a certain sum every year as part payment, and when he became older he could afford to pay for hired help. Under the leasehold system, however, it would bo impossible for a tenant, when he got on in years, to work a 100 acre section at a profit. Tho Crown tenants should have the right of representation on the Land Boards, for he disapproved of the present methods adopted by the Boards in dealing with tenants' affairs. Ho did not believe in the grouping system. He did not think that the Advances to Settlers Department was sufficiently liberal, and better accommodation could be obtained from any auctioneering firm. Ho believed in the present ballot system, but he did not think that a man should be compelled to havo as much as one year's rent in hand. Hβ would not object to have his lease put, up to auction, provided he was paid for his improvements. The question of preserving tho leasehold for the poor man was a fallacy. He believed that the leasehold ehonld not only give a man a start, but should enable him to go very .much further and improve his position considerably. The possibility, of the re-aggregation of estates, should the freehold be granted, could be prevented by Statute, but in any case he did not think that any rc-aggregatiqn would take place. A man should be allowed to ballot for a larger holding while in possession of another, provided ho disposed of that other should ho be successful at the ballot. For the first six years he thought that any settler selling out had done so at a loss, but since then prices had improved. .Tames Butt, holder of a leaee-in-perpe-tuity, considered that Crown Lands transactions should be carried on through the Magistrate's Court, supplemented by the Commissioner of Crown Lands. He believed that the present boards were dominated by the Commissioner; he did not advocate the freehold, and ho believed in his own system; the only thing was that the term of 999 years seemed long, and graduated land taxes should be placed upon large estates, in order that they might i>e divided up. Some of the Cheviot land could be cropped regularly without detriment. Different condiaiens should apply to different classes of land. The renewal of leases and future leases should be made subject to re-valuation, but present leases should not bo interfered with. He thought it would be wise for the Government to raise alt its revenue from the land. Philip Gell stated, that he held 356 acres on a lease-in-perpetuity and 70 acres on a eeven years' lease. He considered that tenants should have the right of appeal from tho Land Board. At present tenants had to abide by whatever tho Boards did, whether right or wrong, and much dissatisfaction occurred. Mr T. Humphreys, Commissioner of Crown Lands, pointed out that a Crown tenant could appeal first to the Land Board and then to the Supreme Court. The witness replied that tho Chief Justice had ruled that a Crown tenant had no right of appeal. Continuing, he said that he would not 'approve of Land Boards being elected on tho party franchise, for too much of the town element would be introduced. A leaseholder should bo given the option of acquiring tho freehold, and that would stop so many Crown tenants selling out. Under present conditions a poor man could not get to the ballot, for the examination of a man's financial position was overdone. "When the first Cheviot settlers went on to tho land, there was no such examination as existed now, while there was much more trickery on the part of intending settlers now than tiit-re was then. Somo of tho Cheviot settlers had sold out to improve their position, and in order to get the freehold elsewhere. Louis Barker, the holder of a email grazing run, supported the petition for the right of renewal of the twenty-one years' lease. He was satisfied with the pivspnt constitution of Land Boards. Hα considered that the best system for the disposal of Crown land was the granting of tho lease, subject to periodical re-valuation. William Hodgson, the holder of 276 acres on the le.ase-in-perpetuity system, said he did not think that tho leasehold system could be improved upon, and he did not desire the option or acquiring the freehold. If he wanted to sell out his leasehold be could always do so at a good price, and then lie could purchase a freehold. Thomas Stevenson gave evidence that ho hold 287 acres on a lease-in-per-petuity. and owned 227 acres of freehold. The estate had, when iubdivided. been loaded with £50,000 or £60.000 for reading, and he did not see why the present tenants should have to pay interest to the Government for that foading. He was (julto satisfied with his lease-in-perpetuity, and would not like to exchange it for the freehold.

Robert Fleming, the holder of 99 acres at Cheviot and 131G acres of grazing country at Kaikcura, all on perpetual lea.se, stated that lie believed in the freehold. He did not see the use of the Land Boards when they were rulod from Wellington, although the Boards were better now that the M.H.R.'s had been fired off. About six years ago the Land Board had, without

reason, refused to allow him to take np 117 acres in addition to tho 99 acres he then held. He would like to acquire the freehold at tho original price. He did not want to carry the broad arrow for 999 years. Samuel Haughey considered that tho lease-in-perpetuity was as good as the freehold, provided it was not interfered with at any time. Chas. Hassen stated that he. desired to convert his lease-in-perpetuity into a freehold. William Felderick Henshaw expressed the opinion that n leaseholder should be allowed to add to his holding when such holding wa.s not Mifficent for a man to live upon. Ho had only 108 acres, and the Land Board had refused to allow him to take up a section adjoining his own. He was quite satisfied with the leasehold tenure. John Hogan stated that ho believed there was a lot of favouritism shown by the Land Board- The Board should have no discretionary power at all. and their powers "?hoiild be defined by Statute. He was not a bit afraid of the Land Board himself. The sitting concluded at half-past ten. To-morrow the Commission will drive round tho settlement, and on Wednesday will hear evidence at Waiau and Culverden.