LAND FOR RETURNED SOLDIERS.

Press, Volume LIV, Issue 16204, 6 May 1918, Page 8

LAND FOR RETURNED SOLDIERS.

TO THE EDITOR OF "THE PRESS.'* ' Sir, —I have read Mr Green's reply to my letter that appeared in your issuo of the 2oth ult. I see ho admits the truth of tho first of my statements that ho deals with, namely, that there are hundreds of acres of land open noiv for settlement by returned soldiers that have not been taken up. Tho reason he gives for this is that it is too dear, and ho invites me to get three practical farmers in the district where these farms are to inspect them, and say if any ono could make a living on them at the rents fixed. All 1 need do about this is to remind Mr Green that the farms referred to have all been already valued by practical men who are employed by the Government for that purpose. It is not the nearest policeman o" postmaster who does the valuing, so Mr Green and the returned soldiers must think that they know more than the Government experts or Land Purchase Board as to land values. No wonder Mr Boyle can't get any that require to learn farming. If Mr Greon ivill turn up "The Press'* of the 2Sth ult. he will see in general news column, third item, that exactly the same trouble has happened in Otago, whore the soldiers' farms are standing unapplied for. With regard to the remainder of Mr Green's letter, I feel if I was discussing a like subject with some old gentleman who was deaf, and who, you suspccted, would get hold of the wrong meaning as he thought it suited him. It is a vory tiresome and laborious exercise to reason with such people. Here is how Mr Green misrepresents what I said. He begins thus: " Though not openly saying so, 'Farmer' infers that only 40 per cent, of returned men have seen active service, and that it would be grossly unfair to allow tho remaining 60 per cent, of 'cold-footers' to have tho pick of the available leaseholds. We consider his remarks on this point most unjust," etc. What I did writo was this: "In considering this subject we must keep in mind that a very large numbor of returned men have not been at tho front. One member of Parliament speaking lately said there were 60 per cent, of those in New Zealand now who had got no further than Sling Camp. Of i course I make no reflection on these ; men; they did all they could, and we honour them for it. "But no one can say that they deserve to bo better treated than the men who have dono the fighting, and yet that is exactly what the R.S.A. seem to want, as if the recommendations they make aro given effect to those pastoral holdings will be occupied before all the fighters even get away from France and possibly by men who never fought." It will from that be seen that I never mentioned "eold-footers," or said anything was grossly unfair; neither did I use any disrespectful term whatever. Further, I never inferred anything, but stated openly that it was a member of Parliament that had put the number at 60 per cent. If Mr Green will get tho "Otago Witness" of April 3rd, on pago 5 he will see the report of a speech I>r. Thacker delivered in Dunodin, in which he said there were 60 per cent, of those who had como back were men who had got no further than Sling 1 Camp. So it is between Dr. Thacker and Mr Green this has to be settled, as I never pretended to know. But it >s possible that both he and the doctor are correct, because Mr Green in his innocence refers onlv to those who are members of his association, which is a very different thing from all the Sew Zealand returned soldiers. |

Mr Green, in his next trouble, is still verv much mixed. He says: "Revealing to the question of pastoral leases, 'Farmer' asks this question," etc. If Mr Green will look at my letter he will

1 see it is with regard to tho farms that arc still unapplied for, not to pastoral leases, that 1 asked tor the information that would show whoro tho land that was being held up was to bo found. In referring to my assertion that thcro is 'a limit to how far dose settlement can bo applied to pastoral country without decreasing he brings forward three of tho large estates in North Can tor bury that in their unsettled condition all contained a large proportion of rich agricultural land that was lying in its native stato or only partially improved, and asks us to look at them. I really can't see thero is any use in arguing with anyono who is silly enough to make such a distorted jumble of a clear statement that iJI practical men know to bo the essence of truth and common-sense. My appeal for some consideration to bo shown to us farmers in our difficulty in obtaining labour, now that married mon with families are being called up, or the Prime Minister telling us that every ounce of effort is required, I fear will have no effcct on Mr Green. Any or all of these things cannot be allowed to delay his scheme for settling the. soldiers. He waives all our labour troubles aside and tells Us never to bother "until the authorities see fit to conscript enemy aliens." Does he really think such advice will keop my teams going? If Mr Green knows of any enemy aliens that are "an undoubted ( source of danger in our midst," it is hi.s duty to inform the authorities, and then the nearest policeman will be em-1 ployed.

_ I would like to ask Mr Green a question. I think he seems best at answering them. It is this: If ho can describe tho young men who got to England hut did not goo active service us "cold-footers" because they failed from some pbj'sical defect, what name would ha give to tho returned soldier who wantod to get into a shcop farm while his comradcs were still fighting and had no chance to compete at the ballot with him? Mr Green's first and last lament is that he doesn't know who I am, but he should know that this is a question of what is fair to all, also a question of what will add most to our fighting power until We flatten out the enemy; not a question of names. I thank Mr Green for having written as he has done, as many will now road my first letter who might not bothered otherwise. —Yours, etc., j FARMER.