LAND SETTLEMENT.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1244, 28 September 1911, Page 2

LAND SETTLEMENT.

9 • THE BALLOT SYSTEM'. In a question placed on Hie Parliament. a.ry Order Paper a few days ago, Mr. lorbes (Ilurunui) asked the Minister for Lands whether ho would inquire into tho truth of a statement mado by a speaker at the Political Reform League's meeting in Cliristchurch and reported in the "Lyttelloft Times" of September 21, and, it the statement was correct, would hb give instructions to the Land Boards that' in future only landless men be admitted to the ballots for lnnd-for-settlemont lands? The report was as follows; "The speaker quoted from an advertisement in tho Ashburton 'Guardian,' in which the successful applicant for the Douglas SettlciiKsnt homestead block. offered at auction a 51G-acre farm at Winslow which reached .ClO an acre at auction! and was withdrawn at the owner's bid of £1) ss. an acre. Here the Government was leasing land to a man who owned a farm worth .€5! GO."

Sir Joseph Ward replied: "Tho statement that the Government- was leasing land to a man who owned a farm worth ■£5160 is contrary to fact. Tho successful applicant for the homestead section in tho Douglas Settlement was Miss Alice Ethel Hampton, who owns no other laud, and was landless at tho time of the ballot. Her father guaranteed to fniaiico her, and informed the chairman of tho Land Board that sho was shortly to bs married. She signed the declaration and satisfactorily answered all questions put to her by (ho board. Although her father owned load, it may be stated that this was subject to a mortgage."

Commenting upon Ms question and tha ". reply made, Mr. Forbes said this was a specimen of the criticism to which tho Liberal party was subjected. Ho depre- .■'• cated such tactics in political warfare. Mr. Massoy said the Political Kcfoirra League speaker whom Mr. Forbes had accused of misrepresentation was Mr. Acland, a well-known member of tho Christchurch City Council. The advertisement • mentioned stated that as Mr. Hampton had drawn the homestead block of tho Douglas Settlement, it was imperativo that ho should livo on the property, and «ro his farm must be sold. Mr. Acland was absolutely right in making his state-, ment. If any mistake had been made it was not .his fault. Mr. L. M. Isilt said the aspect of this case was an exceedingly, suspicious one. ' One had only ; to talk with the officials of • our Land Boards'to become aware that tho spirit of the Act was time after timo , being evaded. There were cases in which whole families had succeeded in obtain-' ing block nfter block of land. Government and Opposition members might unite in supplying a remedy. The Government ■• should in any case introduco • legislation providing that neither tho wives nor sons.of large landowners should be permitted to take up blocks of land . under ballot conditions unless they wore prepared to conduct and manage the pro- •' perties separately. Mr. G. Laurenson said the average size of holdings in Canterbury was 500 acres, < and in the Auckland district 300. Canter- ' bury was practically stationary, and ha advocated the breaking-up of large es- , totes bv taxation ofthoso of an nnim- , proved 'value of .£20,000 and upwards.