LAND ADMINISTRATION.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 10034, 27 April 1894, Page 2

LAND ADMINISTRATION.

INDIGNANT MEMBERS O?

PARLIAMENT,

(Fbom Oob Own Cokbespondejst. )

Wellington, April 26.

Some weeks ago I gave soma particulars of the efforts of Messrs Hogg and Pirani, M.H R's., to obtain remissions for settlers at the Fottymiie Bush on the ground that the land had been rated by the Lands department at too high a value. I then pointed out how grive a difficulty must be created for the Minister for Lands if political pressure was tobe permitted to diminish the land revenue and warp departmental administration. 1 have reason to think that the Minister has recognised the danger, and from what transpired at the sitting of- the Land Board to-day it seems pretty clear that Mr M'Kenzie must have spoken his mind with Highland animation to the intervening legislators. The following is reported as part of to-day's proceedings:— Me Hogg, M.H.R, maintained that the special settlements in the l?orty-mile Bush had been a great success. It was the msn with 50 and ICO acres who had made money there. They were well fitted for their work, and had proved themselves to be hardy and industrious settlen. The psrsons who had gone to the wall we're thfe rneu with the large areas.

Mr Pirani, M.H.R., thought the special settlements under the new regulations would not be so successful. In fact, he would guarantee that there would be 50 per cent, of surrenders. ■ • ■ • .;

Mr Hogg said it did nob redound to the credit of the Minister; that he had refused a portion pi the Awarua Block to deserving settlers after they had been promised some of the land. The men had been cruelly deceived. .

Mr.T. W. Fisher said it was uncertain when the Government were going to get possession of the block.

Mr Hogg asserted that the Government had practically got it. Mr Fisher believed that it would ba two or three years yet before the land was in actual possession of the Government. Mr,Hogg thought the treatment of the.,men who had been promised a portion of the block was absolutely discreditable.

The subject then dropped, bat a letter from the Under-secretary for Crown Lands caused Borne discussion. The communication was to the effect that village homestead sections did not appear to be under the jurisdiction of the Lind Board, and therefore there was no power to convert them into leases in perpetuity.

Mr Ficani did not agree with the undersecretary that the judgment in Gormley v.

M'lntyre, quoted in support of hij ruling,

applied to conversions to lease in perpetuity at all, as by the Land Act of 1892, passed six yeats after the regulations, special powers were given to the board in this matter. The Chief Commissioner said the decision of the judge was quoted to show that matters connected with village settlements could be dealt with by the commissioner only. He ; suggested that the opinion of the Supreme Court should be taken. i Bit Hogg objected to the board incurring expense in obtaining a legal opinion. He considered it was a cruel thing to treat settlers in the manner under notice, when holders of large areas of land, such as grazing runs, could get the concession. Continuing, Mr Hogg wished to know whether the under-secretary was to rule instead of the board. Speaking with considerable warmth, he said that he was sorry that Parliament was not now sitting so that they conld have the matter out on the floor of the House. The whole thing was most unfair to the small, struggling settlers. It waßjjumping on the little men because they had not sufficient wealth to go into the Supreme Court and fight their battles. He did not believe that the Minister was cognisant of the wholo circumstances, and it seemed to him that the under - secretary was badly advised. He (Mr Hogg) was told by the Minister some time ago that the settlers hid a right to get their leases converted. The question was a serious one. Was effect to be given to the decisions of the board ? Tho board said that tho leases were to be converted, and now it was. found that nothing had been done in the matter. It wa3 a very peculiar thing if the Minister and his factotum could turn the key and prevent the board from doing a just thing. The Commissioned: We are getting new rentals, and don't know how to dispose of them-. Mr Firani: You had better make a motion, Mr Hogg. It's time we made a motion. It is no use our sitting here if effect is not] to be given to our decision. The board is not goiog down on its knees to Mr M'Kenzie or to Mr B-rron. It is not only the board that is being treated in this way, it is the general public as well. After further discussion it was decided, on the motion of Mr Hogg, tecondtd by Mr Pirani—" That the Minister fo; Lands be informed that under section 150 of the act the board considers the village eettlers are entitled to their leases in perpetuity, and that immediate

effect be given to such decision." Mr Pirani moved, Mr Hogg seconded, and it was agreed to—"That tha board does not consider the judgment referred to in the Undersecretary's letter of April 10 affects the rights given by tho Land Act of 1892, passed subsequently to the gazetting of the regulations of September 1, 1886."