THE LAND COMMISSION.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLII, Issue 12852, 28 April 1905, Page 6

THE LAND COMMISSION.

i! . ..SITTING'AT CHRISICHUBCE; .'EVIDENCE ' OF V COMMISSIONER OF • * .V LANDS. ' " ' TELEGRAPH,—SPECIAL REPORTER.] I "' ' ' - :CI!BISTCHUncH, Thursday, ,Thk Land Commission .concluded its sittings in Cliristchurch to-day. Several important witnesses were '• examined, including Mi'. Thomas Humphries, Commissioner of Crown Lands for Canterbury. Alexander -Cracroft Wilson, registrar of Canterbury College, stated that the college possessed about 200,000 acres of reserves, 10,000 acres of which were agricultural lands. The leases contained cropping conditions, and the tenants had not the right of renewal, although renewals,, were usually granted. Tlie'fc were about 750 tenants on the agricultural land, and about 70 on the pastoral land. The rents from agricultural land totalled £16,000, and from the pastoral runs £6000. The tenants of the pastoral runs possessed freeholds of their, own, on the middle of tlie Board's reserves, and what improvements tl'ey made were placed upon their' own freehold?. It would not make much difference if the Government were to take over the reserves, and pay a fixed revenue to the' Board of Governors. He did not' think the public reserves would be better administered by land boards.

Arthur. C. I'ringle, member of the Canterbury Land Board, affirmed that the lease in perpetuity system was a splendid thing for , the country ."Tor 'without it numbers, of men would .never have got on to the land. He believed that tenants generally were satislied With the conditions of their tenure. Before a tenant was given a free hand in the working of liis land, he should be made to pay up half the capital value of the land. It, would be necessary to retain the cropping restrictions,. The, Government had never brought' any pressure to bear upon the Land Board relative,'to the administration of the land. 'He'did'' not. favour giving tenants the right of acquiring the .freehold, but, if the right were given, it should be at the original valuation. • James SteveAson, another member or .the • Land Board,, said lie would allow a tenant to grow as many rape and turnip crops as he desired, for;as it would then be necessary to manure the.land, the land would -be kept,in good heart. Discretionary powers should be given to the land boards in respect of the cropping regulations. ' He was not in. favour of the grouping system. Applicant's should, have the option of Jjeing examined before the land boards in their own-districts, and somo .sort of preference should lie giver, to Unsuccessful applicants. He favoured the granting of a snort-term lease, with revaluation, in place of the present 999 years', lease. The present leases in perpetuity should not be interfered with. Michael Murphy,, editor of the Agricultural -and Pastoral Association's Journal, and secretary of the Sheep Breeders' Association, . expressed his disagreement with the Government cropping conditions, for he believed that judicious cropping would "bring its own punishment. To improve.- methods of agriculture, instruction should be given to farmers and to .State School children; also discretion should be granted to the land board's In the way of granting relief from the cropping conditions. He approved of the short-lease system, with the. option of purchase. , Thomas Humphries*, Commissioner of Crown Lands for Canterbury, quoted figures to show that there were 2942 Crown holdings in Canterbury, having ar area of I 4,181,120 .acres, and producing an annual revenue of £122,662 14s 6d. Leases in perpetuity and teases and licenses of pastoral runs were the principal systems in the district... ..Holdings under the deferred payment and perpetual tease systems were few and diminishing, and there were 190 holders remaining under the two tenures. The optional system had worked well, but 110 great amount of land had been thrown open 011 that tenure. Since.the Lands for Settlement Act.was passed 55 estates, comprising- 246,000 "acres, had been purchased and settled, with a- contented tenantry, • numbering 1032, under the lease in perpetuity, 44 small grazing runholders, and 31 on short tenures, the whole producing a yearly revenue of £55.003 10s 3d ; only 125 acres remained tins-elected on March 31, 1904. A very. large extent of country was taken up. ' and occupied on lease under the small grazing rim system. . There, were many small ; grazing runs in the Colony, which it would be desirable -to divide, but that could not be done without injustice to the tenants, who selected the land on the condition that they would not be dispossessed so long as they were prepared to pay the assessed, rental at the end of each recurring term. Future leases should be for a term 0f.21 years,-with a proviso that, in tire event orilv of the run being again let as a whole,_the .outgoing tenant should have the option of a renewal at a rent-based upon a revaluation of .the land.' Experience in Canterbury went to show that the existing .law, which enacted' that-a- person, might hold no more than one imsiorafiuil, "might work out to the .serious detriment' of the Crow interest. Out of the 151 runs in Canterbury, .17 licensees held at the present, time 53 runs, comprising an area of 1,343,924 acres, at a yearly.rental of £13.093. Thos® runs were leased under the Land Act, 1885, and-the leases would tie expiring in a few years, It was verj doubtful whether 52 independent purchasers could he found for them, and it might happen if the law remained as at present, that many would be left tenantless. In. regard to the constitution of land'boards, he thought that the system- of Government nomination was a good one, had worked well, and was hardly likely to be improved' upon by an elected board l . Very great' difficulty had 'been experienced in endeavouring-to keep tenants reasonably within the cropping regulation, and during the'past four year there had Ih-oii 411 bleaches. In many cases the Board would have been able to grant concessions. The present cropping restrictions should be retained, provided the Board had discretionary'powers. Absolute forfeiture was too drastic a penalty for' persistent over-crop-ping, but power to fine up to £3 per acre would meet the case. Power should- be given to reject applicants who had previously committed perjury in making applications. Preference to married men should bo effected solely by permitting their wives to apply for the saW land on the strength of the husband's means, thus duplicating the hitter's chance at the ballot. The present regulation for giving invariable preference to married men- was unworkable. A tenant holding a,'small area under the Lands for Settlement Act should be allowed to apply and ballot- fcr a large section in another settlement, provided l that he gave an undertaking that, in the event of his being successful. he would, within six months, dispose. of his original molding; or surrender the lease, in which ease he would receive valuation for improvements from the incoming tenant. . A. liona-fide servant of the owner of an est file which had been acquired by the Crown niiirlit be allowed to select an area not exceeding 640 acres. The grouping of allotments should be made in a more general and comprehensive manner than at present, and if an applicant for a particular group should 'be deemed to possess insufficient means, lie should have the option of being admitted to another group. The group should be balloted for in their order, . commencing with :th.e one containing the ' J section of least., value. The whole of the '■ applicants for a group should ballot for'the ; order of choice of the holdings. Many of the transfers were from those who had been 1 I successful on a small place, and who were 1 desirous of acquiring larger farms. Some i I of the larger holders had disposed of their leases, and. had acquired freehold land. As regards the dealings with the Government Advances to Settlers. Office, 110 complaints had been made'to the office by tenants or others. . During the past-five, years there I had been 139 advances made to settlers I from the • Government office, and 90 by ! private lenders. In some settlements too many small holdings -had been provided, and advantage had been taken- of the provision, in the Land,. Settlement Act, 1900, perniittinir amalgamation.. It had been urged that the freehold might be allowed to the (tenant, and the proceeds devoted to the j purchase: of other estates, but, apart from j 1 every other consideration, there was . the difficulty, 111.fact,i tlie. impossibility, of .ac- i quiring 'othei'-estates in Canterbury to- the J extent.of a quarter of a.million 'acres of the character" that had up to the present been, acquired and settled. To dispose of the '

,freehold of the estates which had been acquired at' moderate prioes,' and purchase fresh lauds at the market priccs theu ruling, would not only mean that a much smaller area would bccomo valuable for .settlement, but that ii cdnfciitcd tenantry at moderate rates would bo replaced by others who might experience great difficulty in mcfcj ing their obligation during loss favourable seasons. It had been proposed that 'tenants should be permitted to pay oil', say, half of the capital value of their land, but he considered that, apart, from the likelihood of such a course leading lip to absolute freehold,' it would stand in the way of men with limited means getting into the settlements. • • •

. The Commission passed a vote of thanks to Mr. Humphries for his information. The members of the Commission left by to-night's steamer for Wellington, whence they will proceed direct to Auckland.