MAEREWHENUA RESERVE.

Oamaru Mail, Volume XVII, Issue 5207, 13 February 1892, Page 4

MAEREWHENUA RESERVE.

TO THE EDITOR Sir., —Your correspondent. Sir Farquharson, in your issue of February 4th, accuses me of a "deadly scheme." As to this charge, I do not know what he means by it, as he fails to show any scheming in connection with taking up an occupation license. He also complains of us running cattle for the last 18 years free of cost. I deny this charge. I may state that about five years ago the Waitaki County Council took charge of the reserve and appointed a Trust to look after the payment for cattle grazing on the reserve. I and my son paid 5s per head, as the records of the County Council will show. Up to this day I do not know what became of the money that was collected or how it was spent. I may also state that, when I have put my cattle on the reserve on the •west- side of the river, they have been driven back. Was this not enough to aunoy any person 1 The said Trust have been a complete failure, and ended in a bungle. What is to prevent the Trust now in contemplation from being in the same muddle? In reference to myself and my four sons holding 115 acres on the reserve, your correspondent -wants the public to infer that this land lias been taken up solely in the iutcrest- of the writer. Such is not the case, as each holding is separate, and for the sole benefit of the occupier. It is plain to be seen that he -wants to put the boycott on me and my familj-. We are the greatest sinners. He spots me as a schemer, depriving the people of the privilege of keeping cows. Mr Farquharson has been the first man to make application for an occupation license for 50 acres on the said reserve. Behold the man! How he turns round on others following suit ! With regard to my scheme—l mean the deadly one—all I did with reference to this charge was to send a petition to the Minister of Lands, signed by me and 19 other residents on the Livingstone Reserve. All whom I asked, with two exceptions, signed it. I did not go to the west side, as the two reserves are not identical. I forwarded the said petition to the Hon. J. M'Kenzie, Minister of Lands, for his consideration. This is the deadly scheme I am guilty of. Tour correspondent states that we have at no time in the past objected to a single application for a section ou the reserve. His memory must be at fault. Were there not objections to all applications in October, ISB7I On another occasion, about two years ago, did not the Miners' Association pass a motion, in the sclioolhouse, Liviugstone, to the effect that there be no more land leased on the reserve ? I k now the proposer of the motion—of course it was carried. Your correspondent refers to monopoly. Every person here well knows who the monopolists are, of which lie is the champion. Let us take for example two single men. One of them is the owner of 40 head of cattle running on the reserve ; lie pays his share per head for rabbit poisoning, also for the ranger, and maybe other expenses. Itwill take at least 120 acres of Crown land to graze the above 40 head, and the State receives nothing. will take the other single man, with 100 acres held by him on occupation license. He is compelled to destroy rabbits ; he also fences his holding, and otherwise improves the same, and pays Lo yearly to the Government. I refer it to the public as to which of the two single men should be supported.—l am etc., James M'Quade. The following is the text of the petition forwarded to the Minister of Lands : To the Hon. John M'Kenzie, Minister of Lands, Wellington. Sir, —We, the undersigned, miners and others, humbly pray that you -will not pre-

vent us from taking up land under the occupation license, oil the mining reserve Maerewhenna, by placing it in a Trust under the Domain Act of 1882. There are a few men here who want to monopolise the reserve by breeding cattle for the market. There is now under our notice a case of one man who has recently sold over LI 00 worth of cattle grazing on the said reserve. By giving the said Trust power, a great many young men who were born here and who are anxious to take up land under your most favorable Act of 1891 will be prevented from so doing. By granting our request you will stimulate young men to thrift, industry, ancl perseverance. It will also prevent our young men from crowding into towns where vice and temptation of various kinds would assail them. And your petitions will ever pray. Jambs M'Q.uade (and 19 others.) [

TO THE EDITOR.

Sib,—With your permission I wish to say a word or two about the Maerewiienua Reserve. It is, I confess, a subject not very interesting to the general readers of your widely-circulated journal, at the same time it is a matter of considerable import to that much-tried community. I have read "Ida's " letter and the criticism by " Bones." The latter, in the opinion of those who know, is a witty, very fair and true criticism. It has afforded much amusement at "Ida's" expense. In "Ida's" reply thereto she speaks of abuse. I take the liberty to say it certainly contains no abuse. I have observed such tactics by " Ida" previously, though, as " Bones" remarks, under another name. It is a handy way to sneak out of a dilemma—one might say almost the only one where there has been such a change of point. "Ida " proposes to submit her name to you, sir, for what purpose it is hard to say, seeing it would be superfluous to publish it.. She made that pretty clear to residents of that neighborhood in her first letter, and removed all doubt of her identity in the second. But, enough ! There exists at Maerewhenua greedy selfishness in two forms—greed for laud and greed for grass. Occupation licenses ought never to have been granted on the reserve. It was an undoubted mistake, especially as the grantees of these holdings, with perhaps one or two exceptions, run more cattle on the reserve than before they secured the land. On the other hand, those who have no holdings on the tenure have gone into the cattle business with commendable vigor, and made the reserve a sort of joint stock land ; interest therein being regulated by the number of head the shareholder could put on it, and not by any ideas of right, justice, or equity. So I hear of various herds owned by individual participants in the privilege from 20 to 100 head, the larger numbers being owned by such as are owners or holders of goodsized areas of land, the tenure of which gives them the unrestricted use thereof. I understand the Minister of Lands has been approached on the subject, and has, in utter disregard of that old lady's—for " Ida" is past the bloom of youth—opinion that it cannot be done, intimated his intention to administer it under the Domains Act. In this connection I foresee grave danger of continued and excessive friction ; for, hard as it is to say so, it is, nevertheless, an indisputable fact that of those willing to act as wardens or trustees to manage the afiair, there is not a resident who would do it independently and equitably. The cases where a man personally interested will act disinterestedly, as between himself and others, are so few as to be fairly entitled to the name of rara avis. My idea is, the sole control should be in the hands of some Government officer—say the rabbit agent for the district—whose duties may include a monthly visit. He should have full control to muster, brand, etc., and also to apportion the grazing rights justly and fairly, reducing the numbers to bring them well within the carrying capacity of the acreage. I have given your readers a rough sketch of what seems to me—and I am not without some knowledge both of the subject and of those interested therein—the only feasible way in which the reserve can be smoothly worked to the profit of all concerned, and I trust ere the Hon. the Minister of Lands makes any appointments herein he will inform himself as to the truth of my statements. I am, etc., Betsy -Jaxk. Livings-tone, February 11th.