LAND FOR RETURNED SOLDIERS.

Press, Volume LIV, Issue 16211, 14 May 1918, Page 5

LAND FOR RETURNED SOLDIERS.

TO THE EDITOR OF "THE TRESS."

Sir, —I must apologise to "Farmer" for not having replied earlier to his second letter, but unfortunately ray time has been too fully occupied to permit of my cloing so. Ho implies that I am apparently entering my dotage, so possibly he has assigned the delay to this causc. However, I can assure him that I am still in possession of. all my faculties, and very much alive to the interests of the members of the Returned Soldiers' Association. "Farmer" still contends that of tho total number of returned men 3 60 per cent, have seen active service, and quotes Dr. Thacker as his authority for the statement. Evidently the figures I supplied are not convincing enough for him, whereby I prove that only 10 per cent, were invalided home. There surely is a difference between 10 and 60 per cent. I again assert that his statement "was most unfair," and I now add, incorrect. "Farmer" states that I admit that there are hundreds of acres of land open for settlement and not applied for. I think his simile of tho deal man is applicable to himself. I proves that at the time of writing there weie

seven sections of agricultural land i arying in area from 36 to 280 acres; at this moment "there remain only four, and this in spite of the high rentals. "Farmer" also referred in his letter to Lee's Valley. In face of his argument was he not indiscreet: Lee's.Valley clearly indicates what benefits closer settlement confers in place; of two station-holders, neither of whom lived on their property; there are now seven returned soldier., settlers.. all of •whom aro living on-their holdings and working them to advantage. Really all this correspondence is outside the point raised at the annual meeting of my Association, namely, the desirability of balloting for the various leaseholds, which it was proposed should be held over until the termination of the war. -"Farmer's" concern is that possibly some of these sections may be drawn by "invalided" men, and contends that this vould not. bo fair to those men still fighting. He is, however, generous enough to admit that these' "invalids" had done their best for their country, yet he would penalise them to the above extent.

As regards the question of labour I have moro than a lurking suspicion of what this really is at the back of "Farmer's" mind. Surely a capable man, invalided or not, who has done his Sjest in this struggle, is entitled to something better than caring for "farmers' teams." As returned men we have asked for nothing, but the public through their representatives in Parliament have decided that certain lands should be set apart for soldiers only. So far as Canterbury is concerned very little has been made for this purpose, and it was with this in view that the matter was referred .to at tho annual meeting. There is just one further point I wish to touch on. "Farmer" reminded me that the farms I referred to as being-too dear had* been valued by experts. Quito so, but does "Farmer" think that because a man had donned tho Kind's uniform, he must therefore loso his judgment. I venture to prophesy that for any good sections that may come out there will lie ten times tire number of applicants. I now believe Port Levy is to be balloted for, and venture to state that the result of this will prove to "Farmer" tho enquiry that exists amongst returned men for reasonably desirable sections.

Thanking you for your courtesy in publishing my last letter, and agaia asking "Farmer" to discard .his . nom de plume and come out into the daylight.—Yours, etc.. C. W. GREEN.

Secretary Christchureh Returned Soldiers' Association

May 13 th