PUHEKE SETTLEMENT.

Northland Age, Volume 23, Issue 2, 30 April 1923, Page 7

PUHEKE SETTLEMENT.

MR. DUNLOP SMITH IN REJOINDER (To the Editor). Sir,—ln your issue of the 9th April is an article on Puheke Settlement, which, for pure ignorance of facts and misleading statements, would be hard to beat. In the first place, your correspondent says there is no trace of any landing facilities. Is not a beach like the Rangtputa beach sufficient landing for a new settlement? Did he expect to see a wharf when the settlement is only six months old? For over 25 years goods have been delivered on that beach, and some hundreds of tons have come in and gone out. Every foi l night the launch "Tahawai" brings over 8 to 10 tons of goods, and takes away a large quantity ofgum. Very rarely is there any delay or trouble. If your correspondent could see some of the beaches 1 have worked on, “surfing,” he might h.,ve room to talk, but a sandy beach in a sheltered situation (except from Southwest) presents no difficulty. The goods are delivered in a shed for 5/- more per ton than is charged for any other part of the harbor, such as Waipapakauri and Waiharara. Your correspondent 2ays “very little in the way of roading.” This is quite untrue. The whole settlement is well roaded, though the roads are not formed. How much formation does your correspondent expect in six months, with houses to build, gardens to mi, ice, fencing to be done? There are over eight miles of roads surveyed and readv for formation, and not a grade worse than 1 in 20. The access road has not yet been graded, to my knowledge, but the Government has granted £SOO for this road, so we may see it put in hand this winter. In any case, over this class of county formation is hardly needed, as I have driven a buggy from one end of the settlement to the other in spite of what your correspondent says about “the Maori tracks so scored out by the elements as to necessitate very careful negotiation on horseback.” I can only presume he was “seeing double” on his visit to Puheke. I have one of Mr. Meenan’s sons driving their buggy with a load of ladies, over the settlement, and none of them appeared the least bit nervous. With regard to that plowed up hillside with its combination of “so-called soil and wiwi roots,” will your correspondent and his lour “very experienced farmers” come along in about four months time and see it then? It has been sown to English grasses, and I miss my guess if the result does not surprise them. It harrowed down as mellow as an onion bed, a nice dark brown soil. Now, for the poor soil. If these “experienced men” know anything about poor soils and their treatment they would know that there is no such thing as sterile soil. Every soil will grow some particular plant or plants, and grow it well, but it remains to man to fin 1 out that plant. It is the knowledge that the pumice soils of the great central plains of the North Island will grow clovers that has boomed their values. Many years ago I crossed these plains and land could have been bought at Si- per acre. Now, it would

cost as many pounds per acre. I believe clovers will do well on the Puheke soil, particularly Egyptian, and it so, the value of the land will be greatly enhanced. One new settler, experimenting last season found that tomatoes grew well. He also grew some of the best table beet I have ever seen, all on “this so-called soil”. Another older settler grew 30cwt of early potatoes on a quarter acre of ground without manure, and sold them locally at £2O a ton. When he dug the potatoes he planted pumpkins, and got a crop of them, that is, two crops in one year. Those who remember Henderson, Birkdale, and Albany in the early days will remember with what contemp that soil was spoken of, and yet to-day it is worth £SO to £IOO per acre.

“Four very experience men” forsooth! The whole article displays their ignorance of soils of the class such as Puheke consists of. I should like to know wherein lies their experience: it certainly is not in the treatment of poor soils.

Your correspondent mentioned articles in the Poultry Journal giving glowing accounts of an “Arcadian Puheke, cheap living, cheap meat, cheap bread, splendid fishing, excellent soil easily converted into market gardens, generally speaking, a garden of Eden, with fig trees, lemons> oranges, tomatoes, etc.” Did he see any such article? I challenge him to produce such a one either in the Poultry Journal or any other paper. How many settlers did he converse with during his visit? I suspect someone has been “pulling his leg” Why did he not arrange to see me where he could have got all information first hand, and have saved hitn from putting some absurd statements into print. Another of his statements calls for emphatic denial viz." When the settlers landed on the beach, from the launch, with their families and household property, they were confronted with titree scrub, and it took about three weeks to catch their supposed benefactor.” I can give this an emphatic denial. I met every family, either on the boat, or on landing, and had made arrangements for a cottage for each. They were never confronted with titree scrnb. The cottages belonged to old settlers, and there were four available in all, and one lot of families was out before the next lot came in A man who holds a position as correspondent (I presume he does hold such a position) should be more sure of his facts before putting them on paper, The whole article is doing the settlement an immense amount of harm, as it has had a very depressing effect on the settlers there, and it cannot do any good. I had hoped, when I started the scheme, to have had the hefp of all people who had the welfare of the Northland at heart and did not expect abuse and discouragement. I have worked without remuneration, and lost much valuable time, because I thought we had a solution of theproblem of settling the waste areas of the North. The scheme is briefly this; the settlement was started with the idea of making it a fruit and poultry concern, and the site and land were chosen with a view to that end. (Do your “four very experienced men” know anything about fruit and poultry ?) The settler pays one guinea, application fee, and nothing more for five years, but he must do certain improvements and reside upon the land. After five years he pays a rental of 5 per cent on the orginal capital value of the land. It is valued at 20/- to 2j>/- per acre. At the end of ten years he has the right to purchase at original valuation, or if unable to purchase can occupy the land for another five years, still at the 5 per cent rental per annum. About 300 acres of gum land were reserved for the settlers to dig upon to keep the pot boiling and this is what the majority are doing while the fine weather lasts.

Your correspondent states that “before taking up the sections, the settlers were compelled to sign statements to the effect that they took up the sections on their own responsibility.” This is quite untrue. None of the settlers were “compelled” to sign such a monstrous document. They were allowed to select the sections they preferred, either from advice or description, and if on arrival they were not pleased with it they could take up one which they preferred instead. If they thought 25 acres too small they could apply for section adjoining if not already occupied. They were then expected to sign a statment that they had inspected the section (or had it inspected for them) and were satisfied with it. Another statement I wish to contradict. In speaking of the settlers he says, “All have left something substantial.” That is quite untrue. Quite half of the settlers were at a loose end when this chance came along, and some at least are eternally grateful for it. Some of them are men who came out from England expecting to get cheap land in New Zealand, and have spent many weary months, and much capital waiting and looking for it. Is it not better for these men to be carving out a home and earning a living meanwhile than to be a burden on charity or swelling the ranks of the unemployed ? If I were at liberty to print some of the letters I have received, I believe even

those “very experienced farmers” would admit I had done right. Your correspondent says the whole case calls for thorough investigation. In view of the outrageous statements he has made I would welcome it, and if there were any tribunal where I could make him prove his statements, or admit himself, wrong I would have him before it. Of one thing rest assured, the Settlement has come to stay, and if your correspondent and his “four very experienced men” come along in twelve months time I venture to say they will have a very different tale to tell. Personally I am well pleased with the progress the men are making with, of course, a few exceptions, and it is too much to expect all hands to be a success. I intend to get a copy of that article framed and glazed, so that we can, in the future, show what difficulties, in the way of ignorance and envy, the settlement has had to cope with. Trusting that you will find space for this, as you state that you will be pleased to have the other side. I am, etc., DUNLOP J. SMITH. Rangiputa, April 18th, 1923.