REPLY TO MINISTER

King Country Chronicle, Volume XXXI, Issue 4514, 3 July 1937, Page 6

REPLY TO MINISTER

MR. CAYLEY-ALEXANDER'S CASE. We have received the following letter from Mr. W. E. Cayley-Alex-ander in reply to the Hon. F. Langstone's letter published on March 6. After the Minister, if he so desires, has exercised his right of reply, this correspondence will be closed. (To the Editor.) Sir, —It recently came to my knowledge that Mr. Langstone had published what he is pleased to call a "refutation" of my charge of unfair treatment against the Government which appeared in your issue of March 25th last. Mr. Langstone states in his letter that "in September, 1936, the Auckland Land Board submitted certain proposals for adjustment of Mr. Alexander's accounts, but before these could be finalised, his affairs through domestic troubles and ill health, reached a crisis." The facts are these: Shortly after Mr. Langstone's appointment to the portfolio of Lands, hevisited Te Kuiti in his official capacity on February 3rd, .1936, and I asked him at our interview when I could expect Cabinet to give effect to the recommendation of the Agricultural and Pastoral Select Committee made on the 2nd October, 1935 (of which both he and Mr. Savage were members) for the transfer to me of the freehold of my farm, stock and chattels as a reward for my services in ragwort eradication. ■ Mr. Langstone advised me to apply for revaluation and adjustment first before pressing my claim. It was not so much what he said, as what he left unsaid, that gave me very plainly to understand, that by applying for revaluation first, I might get the value cut down to half, in which case I should stand a much better chance of Cabinet giving effect to the recommendation. The book cost to the Government would be only half of the cost given to me then, though actually the same value to me. The Government, by putting the onus on the Revaluation Board, would thus' have made a good bargain at half the present cost and yet have satisfied my claim in full. A few questions from me revealed what was at the back of his mind, and also his approval of my ability to understand that which he did not care to put in plain language. On May 21st, the Commissioner of Crown Lands, accompanied by two other valuers, Messrs. Boddy and Haynes, came to revalue the property, and on June 24th I posted off to the Commissioner my official application for revaluation and adjustment. On August 18th I heard from the Commissioner, dated 17th August, 1936, stating, inter alia, that it was unlikely that any decision would be given regarding revaluation or adjustment at an early date, so that effectively spoilt my chance of sale at £l2 an acre, cash, to a neighbour, because the total mortgage worked out at £ls 12s 6d per acre. When I had first got this offer, I wrote to Mr. Savage on July 27th, asking him*" to instruct the Eevaluation Committee, in view of my twice-voted reward, to cut down my mortgage to £2 an acre. This would have enabled me to make a profitable sale, but as stated in my previous letter of March 25th, Messrs. Savage and Nash wrote, saying, firstly that taxpayers' money could not be used for paying rewards, and that to reduce the mortgage was the same as paying me in cash! After all, one cannot help feeling disagreeably surprised that Mr. Langstone should have so far forgotten his obligations as such to find it necessary to commit such ' a flagrant breach of good taste as to announce through the Press that domestic trouble was one of the causes of my giving up the farm. It was a very contemptible way of camouflaging Cabinet's failure to treat me as twice recommended by the A. and P. Select Committee of the House, and he adds to it by giving intimate details of my financial position; but omits to say that that position was caused through .the same reason. The new labour regulations mentioned in my letter of March 25th were the immediate cause of my deciding to give up the farm, together with the refusal of Messrs. Savage and Nash to reduce my mortgage from £ls 12s 6d to £2 per acre, which lost me a buyer at £l2 an acre, cash, as well as two others on mutually agreeable terms. On receipt of the replies from Messrs. Savage and Nash, I arranged for the sale of the stock and household effects.

Mr. Langstone states that the Government could not possibly sell my place /as a dairy farm because it was infested with ragwort. That is utterly untrue. In July, 1936, there was hardly a plant to be seen for it had been treated with my sodium chlorate-lime mixture, and 140 acres had been top-dressed with 2£ cwt of super. In October, 1936, when I left, the farm was in splendid heart. Moreover, if it had been infested with ragwort, how can you account for the offer from a very level-

headed neighbour of £l2 an acre, cash, and also two other buyers on the recommendation of another neighbour? All sales fell through because of the non-reduction of mortgage, which was cut down to half to my successor, in spite of the fact that according to Messrs. Savage and Nash, to reduce the mortgage was the same as paying cash! If that is so, then my successor received half the reward paid to him for my work whilst I got nothing. The property was sold at £ISOO, though advertised at £IOOO, as mentioned by me in my letter of March 25th. Mr. Langstone mentions a brief remark in the Agricultural Journal of August 20th, 1931, suggesting certain properties of lime and sodium chlorate previous to my experiments. I had not seen the Journal since 1922 when I ceased to subscribe to it. The proportions were not the same as mine. He is also wrong in stating that this was two months before I had completed my proportions, because, if my memory serves me right, I gave my figures to the public in the Chronicle of May 31st, 1932, and issued an invitation to the public to inspect \ my cleaned up farm! My propaganda work would have been further extended if certain officials had not prevented me broadcasting through IYA and 2YA. It is all very well for Mr. Langstone to say that if I had stayed on the farm I should have received voluntary adjustment of land charges in 1936, followed by further adjustment in stock accounts under rehabilitation legislation, but he fails to mention that the new labour regulations drove me off the farm and did not enable me to wait for revaluation benefits. I have yet to hear of a single case in this district which has been dealt with. It might have taken years before my turn came—so I left. Mr. Langstone mentions that Judge Frazer in 1934 found against my claim, but Mr. Langstone omits to state that the A. and P. Select Committee on which he and Mr. Savage were members, reversed Judge Frazer's finding in the following year, 1935! Mr. Langstone equivocates when he says that I was wrong when I stated that the Select Committee in 1933 and 1935 recommended the granting to me of my farm, stock and chattels. My petition asked for them and the Select Committee on both occasions recommended that my petition receive the favourable consideration of the Government, so if this was not recommending my request, what was it? The treatment accorded to me proves the uselessness of Select Committees except as eyewash and a sop to the public, and was emphasised by Mr. W. E. Parry prior to the last election when he stated that the fate of recommendations by Select Committees was settled by the heads of Departments. Mr. Langstone confirmed this to me at his meeting in Pio Pio on the 20th November, 1935. I have dealt very fully with this case of mine, but if further evidence is needed I have it in plenty.—l am, etc., W. E. CAYLE