RE OHOTU SETTLERS' PETITION FOR FREEHOLD.

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 1879, 13 October 1913, Page 5

RE OHOTU SETTLERS' PETITION FOR FREEHOLD.

Sir, —Now that tho Government have brought down their Nativo Land Bill and provision has been made therein whereby lessees of Native land vested in Maori Land Boards are to bo allowed to acquire the fee simple to their holdings, I think tho timo opportuno to place beforo. our legislators the difficulties under which tho Ohotu settlers have been carrying on under their present form of lease.

I feel sure that much of the opposition raised by Messrs. Isitt and others is borne of a misconception of the truo position, and an absence of knowledge respecting the value of our leases for security purposes. Wo do not want to deal unfairly with the Natives, we do not ask something for nothing. We are prepared to pay a fair prico for tho ireehold.

The Ohotu Block comprises about 55,000 acres, and lies between Karioi, on tho Main Trunk line, and Matihiwi, on tho Wanganui River. The average holding is about 1000 acres. The land is vested in tho Aotea Land Board for administration purposes, and the leases aro for 21 years, with the riglvt of re-' nowal for a further period of 21 j;ears, the rent for the second period boing 5 jjor cent, on tlie then unimproved value. Compensation allowed lessees for improvements. ■ t In 1911 tho lessees petitioned Parliament praying for tho right to purchase tho freehold, and evidence was given in support of the petition by the settlers. Tho Native Affairs Committee, which comprised amongst other members, Messrs.Herrios, M'Donald, Ngata, I'arata, Rhodes, To Rangihiroa, and Sir J. Carroll, recommended that tlie petition bo referred to tho Government for favourable consideration. The evidenco and report are contained in Parliamentary Paper I —3 B. However, up to the present time nothing has been done to give effect to tho recommendation. It might be said that when wo took up these leases we made a specific contract, and we Bhouid abide by it. I wish to stato that conditions havo so changed and hard experience has taught us that the leases aro in many respects not what they purported to be, especially is this so with regard to our improvements. We clearly understood that the value, of our improvements was to be a charge on the land itself, but wo now found that it is only a personal obligation on tlie Native owners, and for this reason our _ leases for security purposes aro not in favour with lending institutions. It is true that tho Government Advances Department have had tlioso leases placed on their schedule against which loans may bo granted. I may stato, however, that it is difficult to get more than £500 from them. On threo separate occasions I have tried to obtain money through this Depart--1 mont, but on each occasion my valuation feo has been returned owing. I suppose, to no funds being available. Of what uso would £500 be to me on a security worth at tho time I applied of £6000? Private institutions will not lend oxcept at high interest and wide margins. I know a settler in tho block who is paying 8} per cent, on first mortgage, and he was glad to get tho money, and no doubt thero are others. Unless the bush is felled within a reasonable time it means that tho rent paid on tho standing bush tho grassed land stand at a high rental. When wo took up these leases we understood that the roads would bo made as road work was in progress at the time, but to our surprise the men were knocked off immediately afterwards, and wo learnt that it was incumbent on ourselves to make the necessary roads. By way of further encouragement (?) we found that we had been rack-rated, and wo wore served with rate notices as from March 31, although our leases did not date for some months afterwards, and it was impossible to obtain possession until our boundaries were 'defined. I offered to pay rate as from t'ho date of lease, but the local body, Waimarino County Council, declined to accept part payment, and sued me. I lost ilio case, but applied for a rehearing, which was granted, and finally I won, but law costs money. I beliove there aro about 500 Native owners in tlie block wo are interested in, and if tho titles were individualised and each Nativo given his share, his holding would only he on the average 100 aoros, and to give road access to each such holding would cost, many times'more than tlio land was worth. Tho land at tho north-eastern end of the block had valuable milling timber on it when we took it up, but owing to the unfair royalty clause, we havo been compelled to fell and burn tho best crop tho land will ever have, and tho State has sustained a serious loss by reason of tho loss of railway freight. In 1907 we made representation to tlio Aotea Board with respect to tho unfairness of tho royalty clause, but tlio board declined, to do anything in tho matter. Had the board met us in tho matter we could havo arranged for a mill to bo put in, and the settlers would havo been provided with an easy means of access per medium of the tram lino. Sawn timber would have been, availablo, at hand, for building purposes, and the land itself _ would havo been relieved of a lot of timber. Mr. Massey, in his speech at Taumarunui, on December 2, 1911, referring to tho Native land question, said, inter alia: "He did not wish to raise class distinction, but he was opposed to any system of landordism, State or Native, and every man going on the land ought to have tho right to make that land his own and freeliold. Men living on Nativo land were iimrroving it- by tho expenditure of capital and onergv, and at tho end of their leases it would pass to the Nativo owners. They would not bo doing their duty if they allowed snch a state of things to exist." In conclusion, I would point out that tho Natives have already dispossessed themselves of these lands for 42 years, and I ask, is it fair that after 42 years of hard work, wo in turn should" ho dispossessed?—l am. etc.. HERBERT J. DUIGAN. Wangamii, October 11. 1913.