The Gisborne Times PUBLISHED DAILY SATURDAY, MAY 10, 1924. THE LAND BOARD TROUBLE.

Gisborne Times, Volume LX, Issue 9801, 10 May 1924, Page 4

The Gisborne Times PUBLISHED DAILY SATURDAY, MAY 10, 1924. THE LAND BOARD TROUBLE.

There will ho no small amount of surprise in connection with the announcement that the unofficial members of the district Land Board saw lit on Thursday to resign in a body. It will bo noted that the trouble has arisen over the default of a few of the soldier-settlers in the Wairoa district to meet a demand for only a small portion of their arrears of rent due to the Crown. There arc, of course, two sides to every question, but no matter liow fair one may try to be to the defaulting soldiersettlers, it must be said that, in the circumstances, the members of the Land Board would have suffered considerable loss of dignity had they not decided upon the stand whan they have taken. In short the position is this: that, the settlers in question having got unreasonably in arrears with their rent, the Board, with the concurrence of the Minister for Lands, made a very strong effort to secure a portion of the unpaid moneys. When it went to the length of threatening forfeiture in the event of non-payment of only 2o per cent, of the arrears it was complimented by the Hon. D. H. Guthrie. But taking a further step —deciding to recommend forfeiture in the case of those who had still neglected to meet

the demand —the Minister seemingly siclc-tracked the suggestion. And, with the resignation of the unofficial members of the Land Board as a result, there this unhappy matter now stands. If the whole of the settlers concerned had continued to plead inability to make any payment of rent, it might have been reckoned, in some quarters, that the Land Board has been somewhat’ harsh. But, so it seems, most of the defaulters met the demand made upon them! The duty of the Land Board is, 'unquestionably, merely to do a fair thing as between the Crown and its tenants, and, according to its members, they have been more than fair to those who remain defaulters. It must not be supposed that the Board was moved to take such drastic action without enquiring into the merits of each case. Mr Cameron, indeed, says that forfeiture was recommended only in cases where the tenants were in a position to pay hut would not pay! In the circumstances the members of the Board really had no option but to resign, seeing that the Minister finally withdrew his support, from the line of action which he had previously counselled. There will bo no general denial of the contention by most of the soldier settlors that their properties stand at too high a valuation. But, even though that ho the case, the Minister has proved over-lenient in now deciding that none of the arrears

need be paid until the new values have been settled. It would have been a very different matter if the Land Board had demanded the whole of the unpaid rent.. As matters now stand, if any of the defaulters do not approve of the new valuations they may content themselves by walking off their properties and, in such circumstances, the Crown may loso all tho rent moneys at present unpaid. If the settlers in question have tlio means to pay the small quota of rent demanded,' they should do so and matters could have been adjusted subsequent to the fixing of the new valuations. That would only have been fair to the Crown. We are afraid that the need not expect genoral sympathy, seeing that some of them,, despite what members of the Land Board say as to their means, want the Government to agree (according to Mr Reid) to remit tho whole of the arrears of rent. The position now is that, if the Government is not prepared to back up the Land Board, its members should continue to hold that it is useless on their part to continue in office.