MR HOGG IN REPLY

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXI, Issue 6996, 9 December 1909, Page 9

MR HOGG IN REPLY

. (To the Editor " N.Z. Times.'! Sir,—l am accustomed to misrepresenbut I'fear you entirely fail to appreciate my attitude on the land question, otherwise you would not comment as you have done, on the alteration which I helped to effect in the Land for Settlement Administration- Act. You say, ''There are,, not a who would have expocted something better from Mr Hogg than blatant nonseDSe about 'four or five hundred, aaros round every large town being liable to seizure.' Mr Hogg oan see great * virtue in tho " Stale compulsorily i-esuming a sheep-run of 10,000 acres and dividing it into farms for a Hcore of settlers. He can see danger in dividing a 500-acre holding into allotments for e.,;hundred- artisans and labourers." Then yon go ,on to talk about consistency and principle, etc. Now, sir, what happened? .. Clause 24 of the Bill authorised the taking eompulsorily of : -any property within boroughs of 5000 inhabitants or over, and over a radios'.of twenty miles around the boundaries' of those boroughs. Such an area would include an extent of country arirnnd Master-ton ranging from Featharston to Eketahuna, and from the Tararua ranges to the East Coast. Had the clause (passed there is not a small farmer with- his twenty or thirty or fifty acres that would not be liable to have his land taken from him compulsorily. True, he would be left with four- or ten acres, according as he was within or without the borough. . The only excuse the Prime Minister could offer for such a provision was that land would not need to be taken compulsorily. If so why was the power provided? . Hitherto the cultivator and dairy farmer and the man and woman with a moderate holding have been assured that there was no desire on the part of the State to carve up their homesteads whether they wished it or not.* Again and again I have assured.my constituents,;,in ■ the. country that the farmer with a moderate area of land, .irrespective .of -tenure!, could rest- secure that his. home , would not be disturbed. But hero was a provision that would have had a disturbing efiect cm hundreds, if not thousands of our best settlers. Strong believer as I am in close settlement, much as I wish, to see every willing worker afforded the opportunity of securing a _ good homestead, where he oan place himseii beyond the reach of fluctuating wages and occasional unemployment, 1 will always resist every attempt that is made to injure or destroy the security of the farmer's homestead, so long as it is only a moderate-sized holding. The alacrity with which clause 24 was totally altered shows that my remonstrance, instead of being founded on what you term "blatant nonsense,' ,had-the.de-sired effect.-I am, December Bth.