RETURNED SOLDIERS’ LAND TROUBLES.

Evening Star, Issue 20022, 13 November 1928, Page 11

RETURNED SOLDIERS’ LAND TROUBLES.

TO TUB BDITOK. Sir, —I aw moved by the leading article of the Aucland ‘ Star ’ of November 7 to bear testimony to the truth of the accusation directed against the Government under the above beading in reference to the returned soldier settler Inter alia, the article states; "They (Reform) have been since 1911 a party without a land policy. Now a sane and progressive land policy is the life-blood of this country, and without- it the people must gradually •sink back into poverty. Agreed that, with millions that had been left by the Treasurer during the war years, Sir Joseph Ward, the Government bought lands fur soldier settlement, largely from its friends. But at what a price! Lauds that were before acquired at £6 per acre were taken at £l2, and the fact that there was no arbitration as to the price—there was provision for arbitration —is sufficient evidence that the sellers got all that they demanded To say that in 70 per cent, of cases the unfortunate returned soldiers who were the victims of this trick have sweated blood is to mildly state the case."

1 From ray personal experience 1 can ! vouch that the statement that “ unfor- ! tunnte returned soldiers have sweated blood” is by no means a picture overdrawn for the purposes of election propaganda. ft is the plain, unvarnished truth, and must for ever remain a page ol shame in the history of representative government in the dominion i Unfortunately, the facts surrounding 1 soldier settlement in many districts in ; the dominion are not known to the 'general public; and, indeed, the har 1 rowing tales ol hardship, the mental 'strain and anxiety, the ceaseless toil. | and the indifference of a callous Ad ! ministration would seem well-nigh incredible to the more fortunate digger who had been repatriated in a town job. But, sir, the case from the returned sold W's point of view, had enough as it is, is not my only consideration in 1 writing. That is purely from the humanitarian viewpoint, and surely the war-weary digger, who gave of his best liu fighting for his country, and rej turned in the hope of making his home in the country no fought for, was worthy of humane treatment from a Government which boasts of its humane I legislation. If one will concede that ; a man who builds his home in the ; hackblocks, fells the bush and converts it into pasture, and in general carries out pioneering work in the hinterland I of this country, is worthy of consideration as an asset to the dominion, then the indictment against the Reform Administrtion is based on- sound premises To have stood idly by while the Digger was forced by circumstances to abandon his farm and homo, in order to gain the bare necessaries of life for his wife and family, was not the action of a sympathetic Government, despite the protestations of tho Minister of Lands and the camouflage of revaluations. In short, the Reform Government refused to forfeit the holdings (it had no ground for doing so), and refused to lend the slightest assistance when it was most required, failing to carry out its promises to advance money for stock and materials. I can vouch for instances of bush being felled with Government money, and burned, when the department refused to grant grass seed, and of fencing posts erected when the department refused to supply wire, and, of acres of grass land uustocked. I don’t know whether conditions were similar thx-oughont the dominion, hut such treatment prevailed in the King Country, where the policy of the Crown appeared to bo that the soldier settler should live on fresh air and scenery. The other side of tho picture is from a purely national standpoint, bearing on the welfare of the people as a whole. It is generally acknowledged that our national income comes from the products of tho land. Tho abandonment of many farms meant a loss m tho export of wool,, mutton, and butter when we wanted all the exportable produce possible to swell tho national income The abandoned farms each year deteriorated at an alarming mte, involving heavy loss in capital value, and without a tenant, loss of at least some interest and rent to the Crown, and rates to the local authority. In one locality iu the district I write of, thousands of pounds were spent by the Crown on some twenty bush farms on Crown lands, which, after three or four years, were abandoned one by one until the whole of tho twenty-five mile frontage was deserted What of the loss in revenue and capital which has to be made good by the taxpayer of Now Zealand? Admitting a mistake had been made originally, would it not have been more humane and wiser financially to have encouraged the soldier settler to retain his home, because he would have eventually created an asset for the Crown and himself, and for the country? The revaluation farce did not cut any ico in the King Country, because the hard toiler was penalised through his improvements being taken in as value for the Crown, while his equity was nil The reports of the Revaluation Committee wore the signal for a general exodus, because it was then that the soldier finally gave up hope after tho unequal struggle, being seized with tho realisation that he had ten years' labour ahead of him to catch up to the Crown’s interest in the land; ten years’ slavery without any. compensation. The facts surrounding tho soldiersettlement fiasco and tragedy in New Zealand are a warrant for some hard thinking on the part of tho electors on Wednesday, who should not be led astray by the millions written down on the scheme, when there arc further millions to be wiped off in the shape of loss of interest, tout, and capital in deteriorated farms, while tho “ Diggers ” (most of them decent, good citizens with years of experience at farming) lost their all in worldly goods, and suffered years of privation and mental anguish 'through being caught on the wave of the “ Go-on-thc-Laud ” cry on their return from the war.—l am, etc. Ex-Soldiku -Settler. November 12,