The Evening Star TUESDAY, AUGUST 27, 1912.

Evening Star, Issue 14965, 27 August 1912, Page 4

The Evening Star TUESDAY, AUGUST 27, 1912.

Tiik annual Report of tho Land for

Settlements DepartLand Settlement, ment is perhaps the

most interesting of all the minor departmental papers tabled in Parliament. It is now just twenty years since the Land for Settlements Act- was placed on New Zealand's Statute- Book, and it, was late in the following year (1893) that the first estates acquired under the Act—Studholme Junction and Pareora—were opened for selection. Since that time to 31st March of this year 5,354 selectors have been placed on the land under this beneficent scheme, and their holdings total 1,306,033 acres (these figures including the Cheviot Estate, taken in 1593 under another Act). The expenditure under the Act is rather over six million sterling : but, as settlement land is not alienated, the Crown has the assets there to show for the outlay, and the debt is reproductive. An analysis of the past year's operations does not seem to justify tho somewhat prevalent feeling that there has been a slackening of activity in the administration of tho Act. During the year ended 31st March last tho department resumed possession of 44,447 acres of freehold and 55,300 acres of Crown leasehold —the latter presumably ordinary Crown lands held under the old l.i.p. tenure (which is regarded as equal to the freehold), the goodwill of which has been purchased. Besides this, 10,690 acres have been purchased and the subdivision surveys are in hand. Altogether a total of 110,437 acres has been, or is being, made available for closer settlement as a result of the year's operations. The amount actually opened for selection during the year was 86,590 acres, all in the South Island, and the amount actually taken up during the year under the Act was 91,804 acres, divided among 290 selectors Of this number, however, there were 45 who acquired under one acre, their inclusion being possibly under the provision for the acquisition of laud as sites for homesteads for neighboiiug pastoral Crown land. As there were also 105 selectors of areas between one aero and 50 acres, it is doubtful if more than 200 selectors havo been settled on tho land by the department during tho year. And in view of the land hunger everywhere existent it is perhaps from this viewpoint that criticism of the department's operations has been directed.

Some discrimination has to be made when the term " land hunger " is used. The- Report states that " whilo there "is a paucity of applicants for agrieul- " tural lands, the reverse is the case " for grazing. As an instance, for the

" Four Peaks settlement, of an area of " 12,692 acres, subdivided into eight "sections, there wero 393 applicants, "while for the Timarunga settlement, "of 5,9-37 acres, mostly agricultural " land of good quality, there were only "30. Both are in South Canterbury, "and were offered on the same day.*' There can be no doubt of the popularity of the 33-years' renewable lease—practically the only tenure on which settlement lands can now be acquired—where the land is suitable for grazing sheep. Such lands are sought with avidity; while it is a matter of common knowledge that there is much greater difficulty in placing, say, a 150-acre area of agricultural land suitable for mixed farming, and valued accordingly. To some extent it may bo that the selector prefers the less strenuous life of a sheep-run, but there can bo no question that there is a disinclination on the part of many to take up a 150-aero farm, involving the putting in of the necessary improvements for its proper working, knowing that revaluation takes place at the expiry of the lease. And there is possibly another reason for the preference for sheep-farming over mixed farming, and that is the scarcity of agricultural labor. It is pretty generally understood that in the acquisition of large estates by the Government the compulsory clauses of the Act have to be utilised much less frequently now than in the early days of its operation. The Report itself states that the invariable reason given by the owners for seeking to dispose of their properties is th'.- ever-increasing difficulty of obtaining adequate labor. This factor, together with the high values to which land has risen, has led to a very great area of land being submitted to th' 3 Land Purchase Board this past year, for they wero called on to consider no fewer than 100 properties, comprising over 300,000 acres—an amount far greater than the department could deal with in any ono year. Since the owners find themselves unable to work their land advantageously owing to the dearth of rural labor, and if much of this land, when acquired and subdivided by the Government, is in but slick demand by the small selector for mueh the same reason, it is evident that a more active immigration policy must be pursued by the Government. The national estate must not be allowed to fall short of its full productiveness.

Thxbb is little difficulty in understanding tho feeling of amazePresident Taft ment and indignation and the Canal, that has been expressed by London journals over the tone and contents of the memorandum which was attached by President Taft when he signed the Canal Bill. As the Panama Canal Act now stands it constitutes probably the most glaring instance of an international breach of treaty rights in history. The arguments of the President in support of his position are beneath serious notice. We do not envy the moral and political status of a controversialist who is not ashamed to declare before the world that the rules specilied in the HayPauncefote Treaty wero adopted by the United States as a basis for the neutralisation of the canal, and for no other purpose. The rides were never intended to restrict the United States in the exercise of their sovereign powers over tho canal. The answer to this astounding assertion is to be found in tho terms of the Treaty itself. Article 111. of that Treaty provides for the neutralisation of tho canal on substantially tho same basis as that laid down for the Suez Canal by the Constantinople Convention of 1888. The first of the rules thus adopted declares that the canal shall be free and open to the vessels of commerce and of war of all nations " on terms of entire equality," and proceeds to state specifically that " there shall be no " discrimination against any such nation, " or its citizens or subjects, in respect of '' the conditions or charges of traffic, or " otherwise." It is beneath tho dignity of any self-respecting nation to enter into further negotiations with a politician whose, anxiety to keep on friendly terms with tb.e baser portion of his supporters has led him to such humiliating depths. The matter should he at once referred to Tho Hague Tribunal, unless those Americans in Congress who have expressed their indignation with the Bill as it now stands are able in the December session to repeal tho provision which grants free tolls for American ships. We are not unmindful in this respect of the exceptional conditions dominating politics in a Presidential year to which 'The Times' refers. We know that things are said and done on these occasion!, which are indefensible at ordinary times, but the national honor of the United States, one would think, should be regarded as something too great and valuable—even by a hard-pressed candidate for the Presidential chair—to fling into the arena for all and sundry to besmirch and degrade. We can recall nothing quite equal to President Taft's Canal Message in its cynical disregard for fair dealing between nation and nation, or the sha.melessness of its ad captandum vulgus. The nearest parallel is that afforded by Mr Cleveland in the year 1888. when the British Minister at Washington was " handed his papers" in deference to a wild anti-British clamor that arose over a trap that had been successfully set for Lord Sackville by the Republican party. "Twisting the lion's tail." up till recently, was always held to be a '* trump card " in the Presidential campaign, though there were not wanting signs that a more rational and common-sense spirit had arisen. But the temptation has proved too strong. What matter though the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty were substituted for the Claytonliulwer Treaty of 1850, by which the British Government made very important concessions to American interests; and what matter what citizens at Homo and critics abroad were saying when so unique an opportunity as that of defying the world on behalf of "my countrymen :> presented itself? Therefore the Bill was signed, and, to use the words of tho 'Daily Express,' it will remain a blot on the Republic's reputation.