KAIKOURA CROWN LANDS.

Lyttelton Times, Volume C, Issue 11755, 6 December 1898, Page 6

KAIKOURA CROWN LANDS.

TO THE EDITOE. Sir, —Pressure on your news columns having become less acute—with Parliament prorogued and the Canterbury Carnival Week ,of 1898 numbered with the ’ past—l trust that I may be afforded space to answer the letter of Mr R. Meredith, published in your issue of August 31.'' The member for Ashley refers tojme in that letter—and he spoke of me to the same effect in the House on Oct. 20—as a pseudo-Liberal. Mr Meredith is rather fond of—or, at any rate, is given to using—high-sounding terms, constituting a mouthful. They are as sweet to him as in the case of the traditional old lady with teat “ blessed word Mesopotamia.” Perhaps it is the “ Archy Median ” means by which he hopes to hurl me into a figurative—if not politically literal 4-‘‘ cul do sac!” He calls me a pseudo (false) .Ribera!! What he calls me and what I am, truly, differs widely. I shall not call or liken him to anything. That I leave for the electors of Ashley, Having used the expression (pseudo-Litieral) once, he now, evidently, thinks that it is true. What he wrote last August he reiterated m Parliament. According, therefore, to the “Gospel of Meredith,” it must he correct! If all ins statements are as untrue and as unfounded as this one, they are utterly valueless—base metal. In his letter (August 31) be said: “ ... Mr - G. Renner, the

psc-udo-Liberal, the vote-splitter at the gene- 1 ral election in 1893 and 1896.” In the House he said (see ‘"Hansard,” page 221) : “ ... Mr George Renner, the gentleman who contested the Ashley seat against him jMr Meredith.) in 1893, and again in 1896.” What are the facts? That I did not contest the seat in 1893, though Mr Meredith has twice stated that 1 did. The “ Lyttelton Times (Dec. 1, 1893, I think) said: “Mr George Renner, of Kaikoura, has decided, in order to consolidate the Liberal vote, to withdraw from the contest for the Ashley seat.” If, however, Mr Meredith can prove that my name appeared on the Ashley ballot papers in the election of 1893, I will never again seek election for the seat. He cannot prove it, because I was not nominated. The truth is that, in accordance with my promise to the editor of the “ Lyttelton Times,” I voted for Mr Meredith in 1893 ; my wife and some of her friends voted for Mr Dick. I was not a vote-splitter on either occasion. In his letter, and in the House, Mr Meredith tried to discount the value and numerical strength of the Kaikoura Settlers’ Association. He says that from information received he believed the membership of the organisation consisted of as many persons as could be counted on the fingers of both hands. As answer to that I would draw his attention, and that, more particularly, of the Ashley electors, to the letter (in the “Lyttelton Times” of August 31) signed by eleven members of the Association, who testify that there are sixty paid-up mem berg of it. So long as the Association was in accord with Mr Meredith it was all right; having taken him to task, he wishes to make your reader's believe that it has only eight members 1 (“ as many persons as could be counted on the lingers of both hands” — eight). He says that he was presented with “a petition signed by 244 persons m the Kaikoura,, portion of my electorate, calling me to resign my seat.” Thai is hot the case. He was presented with a “requisition” to do so. I and Mr H. Barrett opposed the requisition when • the matter was discussed by 'tfie Settlers’ Association, but I was, and 1 stiff am,- in accord with the petition to Par • liaineht- .asking for a Royal Commission to investigate Crown land matters in Kaikoura. . I will support a similar appeal next year, . unless the Lands Department redresses Kai- . koura’s grievances in tins connection. The settlers have not done with the matter. I am not going into the whole of the Kaikoura Settlers’ Association’s case ; that will be presented to the Press of the colony by Me Waiter Gibson. I will deal with what relates to my position individually, and so far as Mr Meredith questions my actions. He wrote (letter August 31) : “ I honestly believe the whole of the wrongs formulated by Messrs Gibson and Renner exist only in their own' imagination, and that their only object is to besmirch my political reputation.” That is Mr Meredith’s way of drawing a red herring, across the scent. When I and Mr Gibson (as a deputation sent by the Kaikoura Settlers’ Association) saw him in Wellington in November last year, and brought under Ins notice the matters then complained of, and since embodied in the petition, he besought Mr Gibson to spare him, bat to bring the matter before the 'Minister of Lands when we interviewed 1 ■' him the next day. Not only was that; done, but additional complaints (other than that about S.G. run No. 90) were brought under the Minister’s notice, Mr Meredith being present. Both in the Hon John M’Kenzie’s presence, and subsequently, Mr Meredith thanked me and J>Hv Gibson for haying brought the various matters under his notice, and said that by doing so we had “ strengthened his (Air Meredith’s) hands,” and headded that he would support our (deputation’s) requests. All he did was—after some delay—to obtain in writing what I and other two residents of Kaikoura had, about a fortnight or so previously, been given verbally by the Hon John M’Kenzie, in the presence of Air C.> Mills, M.H.R., viz., the promise of the Minister that a year’s notice of the resumption of thc.Pnhi Puhi would be given the present lessees. When Mr Meredith ’came before the electors here last April he flouted them, and refused to further a request to have the Inner Clarence country opened up, or, rather, only to have it leased for a short period. The “ Lyttelton Times,” with its limited knowledge of matters, has several times urged something similar about the Clarence country. The letter - signed

“ Kaikoura,” in your issue of August 31 (who the writer of it is I have not the slightest idea), says that the Lands Department has allowed the matter to drift to the advantage of the Assets Realisation Board, and adds that “ the matter has become nothing less than a public scandal.” You, in some editorial remarks on that letter, said that the correspondent was “ quite justified in describing the delay in dealing with this matter as a public scandal.” You further urged that “ the authorities in Wellington appeared anxious to leave the property in the occupation of the Assets. Board- . . • and until they (the authorities) give some explanation of their strange attitude they must vest under the stigma of favouring the executors of a great monetary institution at the expense of the close settlement of ohe land of the colony.” If you will accept “ closer ” settlement for " close ” settlement in respect of the Inner Clarence Crown lands, I will endorse your remarks. The Kaikoura petition to Parliament says: “ That the Clarence runs, of about 125,000 acres of Crown lands, are being occupied by the Assets Realisation Board in a manner unprofitable to the State, instead of the country being cut up into grazing runs. The was drawn up by Mr Gibson before August'," 'aifd ‘Vert hoW 'much it and the “Times” are in accord. Mr Meredith has no more warrant for saying that Mr Gibson wrote, or even inspired, your editorial remarks than ho has for saying that the wrongs formulated by us (Mr Gibson and 1) in the petition exist only in our imagination. We (I and Mr Gibson)'mu:st be exceedingly clever men to be able to deceive 305 adults in Kaikoura into accepting what is set forth in the petition to Parliament. No, no ! Mr Meredith’s arguments won’t hold water. His story of how the signatures were obtained is set forth to hoodwink the southern portion of the electorate. Mr Meredith’s introduction of religion into the matter is unworthy of him, and betrays ingratitude. His untrue and ungenerous references to Mr Gibson are cruelly unkind, and, as for Mr Gibsou being “ the misguided tool of the designing Mr George Renner, proprietor of the ‘ Kaikoura Star,’ ” it only amounts to another “ fishy ” exploit on Mr Meredith’s part.' I care not'a fig what he says about ms in connection with the Kaikoura Settlers’ Association, or of my dealings with the electors of Ashley, so long as' he speaks the truth. I can demolish all his falsehoods. I do, however, join issue with him when he makes use of unkind, unjust and false remarks about Mr Gibson, an erstwhile political supporter of Mr Meredith s, but not of mine. Mr Gibson and his family, as well as hundreds of other electors, supported Mr Meredith as against me because they thought at that time that he possessed power in land matters in being a hencliman of the Hon John M’Kenzie. They now declare that their confidence was misplaced. When the Waste Lands Committee took evidence on the Kaikoura petition, Mr Meredith’s crossexamination of witnesses was with the view of showing that there was nothing in the case of the petitioners. Mr M’Kerrow, who favoured , the’ Inner Clarence Crown lands being retained in one large block—by the Assets Board/ of course —said: “The proper way to ~dekl with.: this class of country is to give a long lease at a low rental, so as to nfakc it worth the while of some persons to take it up.” Tlx© official support of monopoly is self-evident in Mr M’Kerrow s statement. But mark, more particularly, his evidence in another case—that of I’crnihirst. The Kaikoura. petition says : “That nine thousand acres of Crown lands on the Fernihirst run were sold in such a way thuc the country fell into the hands of an estate virtually belonging to a wealthy absentee, instead of which the country should have been cut up into small grazing runs.” Now, note Mr Meredith’s cross-examination of Mr M’Kerrow. Mr Meredith: In reference to Fernihirst, did Mr Tinlinc buy the 9000 acres or did he exchange? Mr M’Kerrow r He bought through the Land Department. Mr Meredith: Mr Tiiiline is a very good settler. - Mr M’Kerrow ; Yos, he is one of the best of settlers. He has been there for forty years. Mr Meredith: Then it is not correct that Mr Tinline is an absentee? Mr M’Kerrow: Very incorrect. It will be observed that Air Meredith favours the land monopolist, and that Air Al’Kerrow supports him in that. Now, for the facts of the case. The late Air Robert Tinline died on Jan. 7, 1897, and the 9000 acres were sold on June 9, 1897 —five months after the death of what Air Meredith styled a “ very good settler,” Mr M’Kerrow designated “ one of the best of settlers. The Fernihirst Estate appears on the Government, land valuation as “ occupied by Mr John Pow, the owners being the executors of Robert Tinline; area, 14,624 acres; capital value, £16,510; unimproved value, £13,975. So that the deceased settler, after forty years, had unproved nearly 15,000 acres to the extent of £2365 only—that by one who had had country on a long lease at a low rented (the Al’Kerrow doctrjne), and is understood to have died worth £70,000 to £BO,OOO. The Femihurst , Estate is really the property of a wealthy lady, now and for years past resident in Australia ; it is stated that she has never seen the property. Air Alercdith's questions and Mr M’Kerrow's replies indicate, either that thgy did nob know what they were talking about, or that they wishedi to deceive the committee, Parliament and electors. If Air Meredith proves that lam wrong about Fernihirst Estate he has got me into a “ cul do sac,” from which I have no means of escape. I will make him an offer. It is m.y purpose to recontest the Ashley seat, and to recontest it till I win it. I will, however, enter into a compact with Air Aleredith never again to stand for Ashley if—(l) He can prove that the 9000 acres added to Femihirst was purchased by Mr Robert T inline himself, and did not go to swell the estate of a rish absentee (Airs Alurray, of Australia, I believe). (2) Prove thatrt is fair, and nob opposed...to spirit (if not the hctiial letter) of the laildTaws of the colony, to allow geiitlsrCiSn who already owned 40,000 acres, freehold (as did Alessrs Bullen on-'Jan. 1, 1898) to buy another 4000.'acres of firs Grate pastoral country (as Alessrs Bullen Bros. w6re; allowed to do on Sept. 14 last, when, a landless man is limited, by Section 68 of the Land Act, to 640 acres of first-class land, or .2000 acres second-class land). (3) Prove that the 125,000 acres of Crown lands in the Inner Clarence and the 16,000 acres of freehold—l4l,ooo . acres—held by the Assets Board, are being occupied by that Board in a manner profitable to the State. (4) Prove that about a fortnight after the Alinister of Lands had given a certain promise (with respect to the Pulu), to the first deputation sent by the Kaikoura settlers, that the Under-Secretary for Lands did not telegraph that “the Government did not intend to give the promised notice of resumption at present.” (5) Prove that there are not, roundly, a quarter of a million (226,000, according to Government figures) acres of Crown Lands in the County of Kaikoura yet hi be brought into the market. If he will prove that I am wrong in all these cases, I will give him a written pledge never again to seek election for Ashley. Wifi he give me a like pledge on my proving that I am right in these matters. If he is a courageous man he will do so. If not, what of his “ honest belief ” that “ the whole of the wrongs formulated by Alessrs Gibson and Renner only exist in their own imagination?” The five proofs I ask for form part of the Kaikoura petition. I have not touched Mr Alercdith’s reference to Alessrs P. Smith, ATKerrow and others at his Kaikoura meeting;

his stout defence of land administration at Kaikoura; or-the. Green. Hills-lvahautara exchanges. These form, part of the case of the Settlers’ Association, and will be dealt with by Mr Gibson. I would urge, Sir, that you should commission your pastoral editor to visit Ivaikoura and ask Mr Meredith to accompany him. I am sure that Mr Waiter Gibsou will gladly join them here, as also will I, in making a personal investigation into the grievances complained of by /the Kaikoura settlers. Your Commissioner would be abl° to judge whether, the wrongs formulated exist only in our imagination ! The visit-to Kaikoura would do your . representative good (he would escape the Canterbury nor - westers for one thing), and he would he. able to lexni for himself, by personal investigation, something about Kaikoura.. its advantages, prospects, and necessities. Chiefly, however, lie would see. whether or not the people of this place are truly fighting in the interests of settlement for the prqpm -use of Crown lands. Whilst -purchase-of private holdings (large areas,' in cases), is going on in other parts of the-colony, Kaikoura people are simply struggling for the preservation of the public rights in the Crown lands of New Zealand-: This is a work the “Lyttelton Times’’ shMd aid in. I am, etc., • GEO. RENNER.