A LAND BREEZE.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1440, 5 October 1899, Page 6

A LAND BREEZE.

' SETTLER AND COMMISSIONER. THE SYSTEM AT PA I LT. ; A town man with a grievance is a man ; to avoid. The man from the country suffering from a similar complaint is unavoidable. He is overpowering, cyclonic. - He generally confuses causes with effects, i men with measures—and goes home : sorry. But he has much to complain ; about, and he finds it difficult to reach : the public ear and heart. ; Last week a settler —Mr Cecil Roadley. > of section 16, block 4, Puketoi —waited on the Land Board, accompanied by his ■ lawyer (Mr Field), and with the help of - a huge pile of correspondence and "Han- • sards," proceeded to state his case. This is the joyful 6ondition of things in the locality from which Mr Roadley—the appropriateness of the name will appealmore striking as the story proceeds—hails:—''Last Friday morning I was riding out at 5 o'clock to catch the coach at Makuri, when the horse under me did -'■o 'disappearing trick,' actually sinking till the saddJe-fiaps were in the mud, and I, tlie poor settler, had to throw myself 'like a "flounder' to prevent my final settlement in land to which I had no title. It is under such circumstances that .you (the Commissioner) expect settlers to reside ' permanently,'ancl starve upon their holdings." Mr Roadley's position is no worse in that respect than hundreds of other settlers in the bush districts in the winter season. The only difference is that, whilst others grin and bear the trials and tribulations incidental to back-country settlement, he (though not without the saving grace of humour) is not prepared to do that. He has not realised, apparthat even if the Government surplus every year were devoted to providing metal for the roads in his part of the district, it would be impossible to macadamise the bottomless bogs in which horses disappear, .and, on his own showing, men are reduced to the condition of fiat fish. Mr Roadley opened up a vigorous attack on the Commissioner of Crown Lands (Mr Marchant), setting forth his grievances at length. Receiving what he considered to be "evasive and non-com-mittal answers," he warmed up, and couched a letter-to Mr Marchant in the following downright fashion : -—" The position you take up 'under authority' in answer to my last letter, or rather the question as to 'Government responsibility' to make roads, strikes mo as a very 'low-down' one, altogether unworthy and discreditable to a 'State Department.' If-any business firm that I have dealings udth was to attempt to shield itself under such a dishonest- subterfuge, I should lose faith in them, and abstain from transacting any .business with that particular firm in future." The Commissioner's reply to that communication was snappy and to the point, and read:— "As your letter is couched in improper and unwarrantable language, it cannot be entertained or recorded." Mr Roadley responded in no less vigorous fashion than before, and ended up a thunder-breathing epistle in the following terms : —" ... I shall succeed in spite of the drawback so forcibly impressed upon me that one great blot to the success of our Liberal and advanced legislation is the appointment of men to administer same who are devoid of sympathy on account of their Conservative leanings." Thinking, no doubt, that this was getting beyond a joke, Mr Marchant intimated to Mr Roadley that he intended to submit the whole of the correspondence to the Board. The result was that/Mr Roadley avos invited to come and state his case. He carne, armed with documents as aforesaid, and made a speech in which, liberal quotations were made from "Hansard" and various documents. Mr Roadley bearded the Board, attacked the department, and verbally stockwhipped the Commissioner, climaxing his remarks in the following vigorous terms: —" That, gentlemen, is just how I feel. If it is not palatable to the Commissioner, well, I am sorry for the Commissioner, but at the same time I am far more sorry fOr the settlers!" A conversation ensued, in which it transpired that the whole trouble had ' arisen through no fault of the Commissioner. It was the system which was at fault. Instead of charging the settlers £1 for their land in the first instance, ' alnd allowing them to make their own pro- ' vision for borrowing for reading, the;..' Government insisted on charging 25s > the ■: additional 5s being ear-marked as a load- r ing for road-making purposes. Repre-.,.:

sentations had been made time and agaiu to the Minister of Lands asking that this 5s impost should be removed, and the set«tlers allowed to make their own roaas in their own way, but difficulties had oeen seen in the way. The Hon J. McKenzie had pointed out that such a, proposal, if carried out, would not advantage the settlers ; it would only serve t<H get them into debt, as the roading would cost twice as much as the loading made allowance for. It was suggested, therefore, that it was useless for Mr Roadley or for anyone else to rail at the Commissioner or at the Board. The regulations were being administered as they were found, although the Board recognised the necessity for reform. Mr Marchant made a statement showing that only seven of the original selectors had remained on the block over which the arrangement for loading was primarily made; that only £1497 had been collected in consonance with that agreement; but that £3216 had been spent in roading the locality up to the 26th June last. Cross-examined, the Commissioner admitted that the road was an arterial one to other localities, but he contended that that did not affect the question. In answer to Mr Hogg, it was admitted by Mr Roadley that his contribution in the way of loading had so far been only £lO. Mr Stevens eventually moved that the letter sent by Mr Roadley to the Commissioner was " discourteous, imcalledfor and unwarranted, and that it be not received as a record of the Board." Mr Hogg seconded this; and each individual member of the Board took, the opportunhy of expressing confidence in Mr Marchant as an official who would not be wantonly discourteous to anyone, but who on every occasion exerted himself to the utmost to help bona fide settlers to get on to the land in the most advantageous way. A hint was given that an apology to the Commissioner by Mr Roadley would be the better way to an unpleasant incident. Mr Roadley responded by saying that as it was evident that Mr Marchant felt hurt because of what he had said he had great pleasure in apologising to him personally. That was the furthest he could go. Nevertheless, he still felt that the position he had taken up was a fair protest against the impost which the Government had put upon the settlers without the settlers receiving anything like an adequate return. He would adopt the suggestion of the Board that the complaints of the settlers in regard to this matter should be forwarded to the Board, so that the latter could lay them before the Government for consideration. It was ultimately resolved, "That Mr Roadley having apologised for the statements and language contained in his letters,- the Board considers it unnecessary to pas sany resolution, the members being of opinion that the action of the Commissioner has been fully justified."