The Press Saturday, December 2, 1922. Soldiers' Settlement.

Press, Volume LVIII, Issue 17627, 2 December 1922, Page 16

The Press Saturday, December 2, 1922. Soldiers' Settlement.

The Leader of the Opposition has asserted that the Government has* 11 " wasted" millions on soldiers' land, and his followers, taking their cue from him, have upbraided and denounced the Government for their action in the matter, and have in some instances even blamed Mr Massey for allowing returned men to go on the land without sufficient knowledge of farming. What some of these candidates do not appear to know, and what Mr Wilford obviously thinks the public has forgotten, is that the system of soldiers' settlements originated with the National Government—in response to a general desire by returned men that they should be assisted to tako up land, and a widespread demand from the public, that their wishes in this matter should be met by the State? as an acknowledgment of the Domin- ' ion's indebtedness to them. The policy pursued in this matter was the same then as it is to-day. Yet, as a contemporary reminds Mr Wilford, neither

he nor hia-associates, who now so furi-

j ously belabour the Government for j carrying out that policy, thought it :■ necessary or desirable to make the ■ question a central issue at tho elections three years ago. lhe (government critics also ignore the fact, and ; believe apparently that their hearers ha>« forgotten, that t'.iis policy was endorsed and approved by several ; prominent members o.f the Liberal j Party. Some quotations from the in- : valuable -'Hansard" may refresh their j memories and those of the public on ! this point. We give first place to Sir i Joseph "Ward, because, though not now j taking an active part in politics, some iof his former followers attach im- | portanee to his views. Speaking on ' tho Discharged Soldiers' Settlement | Loans Bill on September 3rd, 1919, : about a fortnight after the dissolution ! of the National Government, Sir Joseph 1 said:— , "I rise for the purpose of supporting i tlii.; Bill. I do so because any moneys | that are required lor the purpose of i discharged soldier settlement should no i provided unreservedly by the lirnso. I .... It is only right to fall atten--1 tinn to the fact tluit it is the swiftI ness of tho effort that has been made 1 and is being made, and_ no doubt will ' bo made to ensure lands for the soldiers that requires such a large sum- ' It. is really a large sum —£12,500,000.' | Six weeks later Sir Joseph, in discussi ing the Discharged Soldiers' Settlement | Bill, and a statement by the Minister j of Lands that so far some eight and ! three-quarter millions had been expendI ed, congratulated the Minister upon j tlie statement he. had made in regard to | what had been done for discharged soldiers up to date, and went on to describe the statement as "very satisfactory," and to express approval of the expansion proposed in the Bill. Not to be behind his leader in this matter, we find Mr Wilford, on the same occasion,

urging the Government to acquire compulsorily "some of the best land in "this country for soldiers," objecting to the idea of putting the soldiers far from settlements, and suggesting that' the Government should "pick the eyes " out of those large holdings along the "line of railway" (in the rich districts of BiMv-ke'fl Bay) "taking the area 3 and "blocks in one sweep from those men " who own them, give them a fair market price"—this was when land had advanced rapidly in value —"adding " 10 per cent, for the compulsory tak"ing and take those great big tracts "of valuable land close along the line "of railway, so that each soldier can "get hold of a good section." We do not know whether that Government followed Mr Wilford's advice, so far as buying any of this rich occupied land was concerned—we should be surprised to learn that they paid such prices for any of the soldiers' settlements as this land would have cost. Other members of the Liberal Party who possessed some knowledge of land and farming, and who gave more or lees support to the Government's action three years ago were Messrs G. W. Forbes, 3>. Buddo, and G. Witty, to whose remarks on the subject we may refer later.