THE LAND COMMISSION.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1732, 10 May 1905, Page 69 (Supplement)

THE LAND COMMISSION.

EVIDENCE IN CANTERBURY.

Special to the u Mail.” CHRISTCHU RCH, April 55. The Land Commission resumed tafi. ■ ing evidence in Christchurch yesteidaj. Six members of the Commission, including the chairman (Mr J. MeKerrow) ■were present.

Raymond Heoworth, officer in cuarge of the Advances to Settlers Office _ at Christchurch, said that he did n<A tlnnic there was any unnecessary demy in making advances, as reports and valuations had to be obtained, and many applicants creaied delay by failuic to make their applications property. A week would be the minimum time in which a loan could he granted, probably a week or ten days would be a fair average. Fairly often an applicant did not get all he asked for. Il'C amount was fixed by the (Board m Wellington. The Advances to Se.tleis Office held four hundred and seventytwo mortgages on Crown leasehold lands in Canterbury,. and the total amount owed to the department in the province on March 31st. 1904. was £40.740. During die past three years only twenty-three applications for amounts totalling C 203.0. had been declined in Canterbury. He had never had any instructions to refuse loans on account of lack of funds, and it was not the case that +he office regarded a leasehold as less valuable security than a freehold.

Andrew Allen, district valuer ■ for South Canterbury, said that since 1897 land bad risen 30 per cent, in value. There was no stated time for revaluations. One district h’d been valued one© in seven years, and another twice in four years. The improvements and farming on leaseholds compared very favourably with those on freeholds. A creamery or a butter factory n a district would sometimes increase land values, and in such cases the increase would go down to the unimproved value.

Albert Freeman, valuer for the Ashburton and Selwyn Counties, said land values had gone up very considerably in his district since 1897, probably averaging from 25 to 40 per cent, in rural and suburban land In the country proper nloughable sheep land had greatly increased in value, probably 50 per cent. He did not think the large increases were justified, but the genera! prosperity, the increased price of products, the cheapness of money, and other things, had caused the rise. He ♦ always valued leasehold land on tt same scale as freehold. Sometimes an apt4scant for a loan from the Advances to Settlers Office d-Vl not get- h U tb value of his improvements. Ideas as to improvements differed. The Government might not consider grassing an improvement, as it was worked out in three years.

Mr 4 nstey : Do you value grassing as an improvement ?—Witness : Yes. The Court has held it to he so. Mr Mathieson: Do you allow grassing as an improvement in your report for loan purposes ?—-Witness: Yes. Mr Mathieson: Have you ever known of a case in which the ratable value of a

Crown leasehold lias been reduced below the rentable value? —Witness: Yes. Mr Matlneson: Have you ever had any instructions as to raising or reducing values? —Witness: Never. Wilfred Hall, freehold farmer, a member of the executive of the North Canterbury Farmers’ Union, said' he supported the freehold tenure. The State could lose little or nothing by seli'ng its land at a fair price, as the unca nod increment, if it existed, was so small as to be negligible. Ho did not think land in the colony could keep at : ts present high value, and therefore maintained that it would be to the advantage of the State to sell all its land. There could never he any security under a leasehold, and the Slate as a landlord had not been satisfactory in Egypt, ancient Italy, or Turkey. I nder a system of universal State tenancy the Government would squeeze the last penny possible out of its tounnfcs, n.nc ? m eve over, the Government in power would he tempted to wholesale corruption. The result would ho to sap the and indc non done© that- characterised the freeholder. There might be some insecurity about the freehold. Public bodies would probably be well advised to sell their reserves and invest fhe money in other securities. State tenants should have the freehold at the original valuation. Mr Paul: Yon would he in favour of selling all public endowments? —Witness: Yes. I think that it would be profitable. The State could prevent the re-aggregation of large estates bv repurchasing for subdivision or by making : t illegal to possess more t-han a certain area. Public works, such as roads and b”id.ges, had increased the value of land, but the tenant or owner .should be allowed to have that increase. He had never visited a Crown settlement, and had had no experience or the leasehold. A petition, asking for the freehold, had been circulated among Crown tenants by the Farmers’ Union, but they had not been pressed to sign.

Henry Will'ams, Crown Lands Ranger, covering the district between the Waitaki and Rangitata rivers, .said that twenty-five Crown settlements and some two thousand Crown tenants came under his jurisdiction. Practically all •ofeined to he prosperous and contented. He thought the cropping restrictions might be relaxed in regard to some rich land, and that the Land Beards should be given wider discretion. He did not think there was any tendency on the part of Crown tenants to overcrop their holdings. The tenants should have no difficulty in paying their rents, even if they were overtaken by bad times. He had not had any instructions direct or indirect to ask Crown tenants to give evidence before the Commission. There was not the slightest reason why Crown tenants should be afraid to give any evidence they pleased before the Commission. Comparatively few had come forward, because as a body they had no complaint to make. A good many tenants were guilty of breaches of the cropping conditions, and the only punishment that the Land Board had power to infkct was eviction. It would be well to give the Board power to impose a less drastic penalty, such as a fine of s© much per acre’. There had been deferred payment settlements in his district, but most of the sections sold on that system had since been grouped under men who bought out their neighbours.

John Ronnie, freehold farmer, chairman of the School Commissioners, said his two sons were Crown tenants under lease-in-perpetuity. He regarded that as the best form of land tenure yet adopted by the colony. Ho was quite satisfied that men in the Crown settlements, such as Cheviot and Highfield, had been given many years''start of the men who had had to struggle to purchase a freehold. The Crown settlers generally seemed prosperous and contented, and their improvements were quite as good as those of freeholders. William Dunlop, freehold farmer, chairman of the Selwyn County Council, said he much preferred the "droid to the leasehold, but he regarded the latter as the best tenure for the poor man who 'wished to start in life. He thought freeholders generally had more care for their land than leaseholders, but he had not visited any of the large Crown settlements.

George Alexander McLean, Crown tenant on pastoral lease, complained that he had not a secure tenure or reasonable valuation for improvements. William Aplin, wool-classer, objected to the lease-in-perpetuity, and suggested that the present tenants should he bought out, and the land let on a, thirty yeai-s’ lease, with right of renewal► after revaluation.

Frederick Ozane, holder of a village settlement lease-in-perpetuity, said he was perfectly satisfied. Alfred Bunn, freehoid farmer, also supported the existing land system. John Maffey said the State should part with no more of its land, either uy sal© or on lease-in-perpetuity. Men who had secured this latter tenure should he bought out, and the land should be let on a shorter lease, with periodical revaluation. He opposed the freehold tenure altogether.

Henry Herbert Pitman, steward of educational reserves for Canterbury, said he controlled some forty-three thousand acres of land cut up into two hundred and forty sections ivith two hundred tenants. The revenue ia 11X)4

tion was given for buildings only. He had been £18,521, of which sum about £6OO was spent on administration. The cropping restrictions were fixed according to conditions. Tenants were given the option of renewal at the end of a fourteen years’ term, on an arbitration rental, provided they had been approved bi/ the Commissioners. Comnonsa-

regardod the lease-in-perpetuity as a bad tenure for the State. Ur vn lands should be let on a thirty ye<*rs lease, with right of renewal at an arbitration rental, but no option of the freehold. John Newlyn, supported elective Land Boards, and maintained that there was no such'thing as unearned increment.