WEST COAST RESERVES.

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume LXXI, Issue LXII, 11 May 1912, Page 5

WEST COAST RESERVES.

COMMISSION OF ENQUIRY

SITTING IN HAWERA

2* c Ro^al Commission (JDr McArthur, S.M., Wellington, chairman, and Mr W. Kerr r SM. f Wangaimi) appointed to enquire into matters connected with the leases under ''The West Coast Reserves Act,- 1881," commercced its sittings in the COTirt'housey Hawera, on Friday afternoon. Mr R. D. Welsh (Havvera) appeared for fifty of the lessees, and Mr W. H. D. Bell (Wellington) for the native owners. Mr T. W. Fisher, Under-Secretary for Native Affairs, and Mr G. Zachariah, agent for the Public Trustee* in- Hawera r were also present. The Courthouse was crowded with natives, who took a good' deal of interest in the proceedings. ORDER OF REFERENCE. As stated in the Government Gazette of April 11, the Commission is to> enquire: (1) On what terms and conditions thesaid lessees or any ef them should be* permitted to surrender their present leases and obtain new leases in lieu thereof under sectien 8 of the West Coast Settlement Reserves Act, 1892" (2) Whether any of the said' lessees havebeen misled by any ""act of the* Public Trustee- or any other officer of the Public Trust Department, or the form of the lease issued, or the reflations made under the West Coast Settlement Reserves Act, 1881, or its amendments, into believing that there- was no limit to the amount of compensation to which they were entitled under their leases, and'in consequence of such belief made on their leaseholds or purchased from other lessees improvements in excess of five pounds (£5) per acre.

(3) What areas of land now leased' mder the West Coast Settlement Reserves Act, 1881, and its amendments, may hereafter be required by the' pat ion; and, having regard "to their Native owners for their use and occupartieular interests therein and their individual fitness for profitably using such lands, which of the said' leases, if any, should be allowed to remain under the Dresent tenure in order that such Native owners may, on the expiration of such leases, compete for the possession, of the lands held tinder them. (4) What provisions should be made toenable such Native owners to get financial assistance from the Government to enable them to work their farms, should any of them become tenants of such leaseholds. The interpreter having read the. proclamation appointing the Commission in the English and Maori languages, The Chairman said that Mr Kerr and himself had conferred with reference to the procedure, and had agreed that the proper course would be for the lessees to state their case first. Mr Welsh and Mr Bell stated that they were agreeable to this course. The Chairman intimated that the Commission would hear as much evidence as it could in Hawera, and afterwards it would sit at Opunake and at New Plymouth. THE CASE FOR THE LESSEES. Mi- Welsh then stated the case for the lessees. In approaching the enquiry, he said, lie purposed hrst of all. inviting the Commission to particularly consider the tae^s leading up to and out of which the claims of tne lessees holding leases under the West Coast Settlement lleserves Act, 1881, had arisen. At the outset he desired the Commission to consider the conditions prevailing at the time when the lands were leased in 1881. The lands were then mainly in a very virgin state, and they were to be leased at the best im- i proved rent obtainable at' the timeSome of the lands did nob let readily when they were put up by public tender by the Public Trustee, and they were rightly kept back by him until such times as they could be the better let. Under the regulations it was made abundantly clear tnat the fullest publicity should be given to the mode under which the leases were to be offered to the public, and that the authorities were to get the very best rent they could for the lands. It was also clear that the lessee was then no favored person, for he was to pay full rent for the native land in its then virgin condition, in a district which had. but recently emerged from a state of war, surrounded by a large population of natives, large in proportion to the number of white settlers on the land,, and whom it wottld be a mere euphemism to describe as peaceful. And it was also perfectly clear that the lessees were not to be permitted to acquire the leases for mere purposes of speculation. Under clause 28 of the regulations it was stipulated that within two years of his lease the lessee had to bring under cultivation not less than one-tenth of the land leased by him, in four years not less than one-fifth, and within six yeass, in addition to the cultivation of one-fifth, he had to place on his land substantial improvements to the value of £1 for every acre. Counsel then went on to say that under covenant five the lessee was to be paid by the incoming tenant for all buildings and fixtures, including fencing, which were deemed to be substantial improvements; in other words, he was to be paid in full for them. There was to be no limitation as to value. The lessee was led to anticipate under the Act of. 1892 that he would be paid in full for all improvements of a permanent nature, which meant -houses, buildings and of land, the benefit of. which was unexhausted at

the time of valuation. He went on to detail the lessees' rights under the lease, which he claimed were not quite certain as appeared at first sight. There was no attempt in the lease to really set and define in plain language wha.t the lessees' rights were, and he asserted that the lessees were misled by their leases and by the form of covenant and by the effect' of the regulations. The trap was wide open. The Chairman: You don't say thai, it was a trap that was.Jaid? Mr Welsh: No; I think we all tumbled in. Passing on, counsel considered the actions of the lessee and his do- , ings after he got his* lease. The lessee, he said, devoted all his time, money, and energy in getting his bush felled, his grass sown, and his land fenced. Would he have done this had he known that he was not to be entitled to any compensation for it? Would he have taken up>the land at all? He did not think so. It was perfectly obvious that the lessee was to get nothing for his reclamation of the land. The only thing he was to l>e paid for was the last thing he would think of —his buildings, which wonld theu be a whare. Under the lease he was to be paid for substantial benefits. Was the whare a substantial benefit he could look to2l years after. There were no substantial • benefits at .that time, remarked counsel, not as far as whwres were concerned. In Ilie.yt&r' 1910 ?i measure, thought at the time to be a measure of relief, but which he, on behalf of the lessees, had pro-

tested against, was made law. It *as *_2 n^ ye Land Ckims Adjustment I Act., 1910, and by section 4 of -this mea- ; sure it was enacted in the case of ties* i leases that all.substantial improve mants wereto be valued instead of being limited in. character up to £5 per acre Obviously bush-felling and grassing weie improved work, and were now to b«r mcluded in tha lessees' improvements. He mentioned this now to show tl at this fact had not been overlooked in theconsideration of the lessees' cases. But that was not the point under considaratioft for the moment. What he wished to direct attention to was that the lessees had been misled by the lease and by the regulations. They expended therr afl at the time on their bush-fell-mg- and grassing, and in bringing therr Jarrd into cultivation. In support of tins cofftentron that the lessees were under the impression that they were to be1 paid for all ttieir improvements he said he saw that the Public Trustee and lending departments had granted loans in excess of the £5. It was obvious to- all that the lease was badly draw by tfie> draughtsman, and it, had tended to mislead no* &nfy the lessee but tfoe man whose duty ft was to consider and deal witfr the document He> ! desired next to refer briefly to the I statute- of 18921, by which there was a ; right given to the> lessees to convert their leases under the Act of 1881 to leases under the Act of 1892. It might perhaps be urged agamst the lessees that they had the right to convert in 1892 extended to 1835 and 1900, and should have' avKfled themselves of it. The right was from November, 1892, to 1893 'tS^*? 6"™ 111 £F 5 ta 1896 > and from TBOB to 1900. This class of legislationwas- not conducive to assisting the lessees in ascertaining tneir rights, nordidjt bring th> lessees face to face with their positions. As to the knowledge of the lessees of the right of conversion some of them knew of this in 1892, but they never heard of any extension, or gather of any revival of the risht, and In 1892 they were not financially in st position to pay anything. After 1893. when the first risrjjt v.ns c^e. some of the lessees spent considerable sums tn 'improvements, then hei^" be++or off. • but had they Jhrown of the rights of" conversion they would have availed themselves of it. Some knew later than--1893 of the right, but not of the legaf effect of the leases of 1881. If they did know it they did not appreciate its effect upon their leases. The position of the leases was only disclosed when judgment was given in Tinkler's case, and the lessees then petitioned the House for relief, claiming payment for improvements without limitation, and the right to, still come under the Act of 1892. This petition was referred to the Lands Committee of the House. The committee heard some of the petitioners and the I Public Trustee, and suggested to tha Public Tnistee, and the petitioners, that they should attempt to arrive at an arrangement. This was done, and the Land Committee reported to the House recommending legislation in terms of that memorandum. He believed that to be a fair measure of legislation, and the lessees now only asked to be placed in the same position they should have been had they been aware nf their proper rights of conversion. They only asked for the treatment that all the' lessees under the 1892 Act possessed. Meanwhile, counsel contended, the present legislation was bad for the parties and bad for the land. The lands in the present conditions of closer farming required expenditure on them of larger sums of money: but this coiild not be done with the limitation as to improvements. That policy was absolutely disastrous to the cultivation of the land. The Jessecs were not before the Commission on an organised land-grabbing scheme, or to do the native out of his. land; they were prepared to pay the rative a reasonably fair thing, as they desired to make the lease their hoire. Counsel, in conclusion, wished ijt to be clear that he wn<s not imputing anything against the Public Trustee, or the officers of the department, but that it To' the legislation that wps at fault.

The Commission then adjourned until 10.30 o'clock next morning. -