The Star. (PUBLISHED DAILY.)

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume XX, Issue 2383, 22 March 1893, Page 2

The Star. (PUBLISHED DAILY.)

• WEDNESDAY, MARCH 22, 1893.

THE PUBLIC TEUSTEE LEASES.

Someone with a little more anxiety to appear in print than to ascertain facts has been writing to the New Zealand Times about the objection on the part of certain native-lease holders to pay rents lately demanded by the Public Trustee. " West Coast," as he signs himself, evidently does not in any way understand tbe position. He says it is the confirmed leaseholders who are concerned, and that tbe objection is to pay up back rents. But perhaps we bad better quote a few sentences : " The manner of dealing with these leases baa been explicitly laid down by Act of Parliament, and the Public Trustee has shown himself very desirous of thoroughly understanding the whole complicated busineßß in connection with the most vexed of all Native leases — the ' confirmed '—about which there has been such bungling by past Governments, such eoormous cost tv colony, and suoh general satisfaction to all

parties concerned. . . . One item ot grievance is that lessees must, in order to bring themselves within the provisions of last year's Act, surrender preseut leases and pay up all back rent. As to this latter, it will be within the mark to say that several thousand pounds of overdue rent have neither been paid the Native owners cf the land, with whom most of these disputed leases were first arranged, nor to any Government officer in trust for tbe rightful owners. Tbe lands, and some rather large areas, have been held at varying rentals, chiefly very low taking the high quality of the land into consideration, but on one excuse and another the lessees have practically been using tbe land rent free. It is now construed into a grievance that these holders back of lawfnlly due (long over due, in fact) rents should now be compelled to * ante-up ' before their respective cases can be considered by tbe Public Trustee. This is as the law directs. It seems but a very reasonable provision. The defaulters have had the use of money foi several years whioh properly should have been paid over to the Native owners of the land on due dates." Tbe letter, as most people in this district will see, is a farrago of nonsense in respect of the question at issue. The " confirmed leases " are not in question at all ; nor is the payment of back rent. It is the Public Trustee's leases which are in issue, and the point is whether rent should be paid in advance on the basis ot a contract originally made, it is true, but suspendei five years ago, and which, it ib admitted, can never be enforced ; or whether the rent should be paid on the basis whioh has ootained during the last five years, until such time as the new leases, rendered necessary by regulations made by the Trustee being deolared by the Court of Appeal to be ultra vires, can be issued. A valuation is now being made on which the rent for the future will be payable, and tbe tenants say they are willing to pay as they have paid during the past five years, but not the admittedly rack rent which had to be suspended. When the new leases have been fixed up, and on tbe average- the rent cannot greatly exceed that which has during the past five years been collected, then tbe whole matter can be settled, but what they object to is tbe revival of an outrageous rent and being asked to pay it in advanoe. Tbe lessees are willing to pay not only the extra rent which may be demanded later on but also interest added as from the Ist of January. Will " West Coast " have the fairnesd to explain to the public of Wellington that he wrote under a misapprehension of the facts ; because bo much is certainly dud to settlers on this coast who have been held up by him to tbe contempt of fair minded people. If the Public Trustee is in tbe same fog as " West Coast " it iB no wonder that he has refused the applications which have been made to him, but that can hardly be the case.