THE POMAHAKA FAILURE.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 11809, 11 August 1900, Page 8

THE POMAHAKA FAILURE.

eviction and confiscation.

A REDUCTION OF RENT REFUSED.

(Fp.oir Ouk Own Cokbespondbnt.)

WELLINGTON, August 10,

The Waste Lands Committee to-day reported to the House that they had considered the petition of James Burke and 16 others for a reduction of rent of their sections on the Pomahaka Downs estate. As the matter is before the Otago Land Board, the committee decided to make no recommendation.

Air Thomson (Oiut-ha) turn it was evident now that the land had been surveyed into too small areas, and the present occupiers believed that the only way in which they could be assisted was by a reduction of their rents. i Air iNrjXiiD raised the point that the loading placed upon the land for roads, etc., was largely brought about by the subdivision of the estate into too small areas. In the event of the property having to be re-subdivided tho additional expense ought not to be loaded on the property. - -He could not hold out any hope ol the recommendation!-, if given effect to, relieving the ditiicuity. The original price of the lanu was about ±ii lUs per acre, and the price at wnicli it was given to the settlers was about £3 7s bel per acre. It would have been better if, in the first instance, it had been subdivided into large areas. In regard to the price of land in the south being so much lower than in the north, it was, he thought, due to the fact that during- a considerable period in tho winter the settleis had to support their stock on food stored up from the summer! Tne rental of 3s 2d per acre was one.which it was impossible for the settlers of Pomahaka to pay and obtain a fair living for themselves.

llr Eraser (Wakatipu) asked when tuey were going to near the last of this \Vretched Pomahaka estate. He hoped that Mr Al/Nab's remarks would be listened to and given effect to by the Government. The Government should bring down delinite proposals that would enable the men to live decently. They knew n '.vi>s impossible lor them 10 pay the present rent. . . . _vi' Kiani urged that something should be done by the Land Board or the department to remedy the present state of afiairs. There appeared ,to be something- radically wrong. Mr Hogg, (a Government supporter) said it was clear these settlers were in a very bad way. They had received notices of forfeiture, and not only that, but also notices to quit. In some cases they had been informed by circular that the whole of their improvements would be confiscated. A number of them had gone there with capital ranging from £400 to £1000, and they Had lost the whole of that within a period of a few years. Then the Waste Lands Committee of the' House were told that the land was utterly unadapted for close settlement. It was only good for sheep grazing, and it was very poor sheep country. It would not grass, for every three years the grass gave out, and had to be sown again. The land produced only inferior crops of oats, and occasionally turnips.l The settlers were so far from a railway that these crops were of .little value! It was a great pity that the settlers were in this position, and something should be done'to assist them out of their difficulties. He really sympathised with the people of Pomahaka.

Mr Hornsby (another. Government' supporter) moved that the report be referred back to the committee. The time had now come when the, House should' do something for' these unfortunate people who had been ruined through going on unsuitable portions of the estate. He advocated an enlargement of the area of the holdings. The settlers had lost their money, and- were- continually threatened with eviction. He deplored the fact that such a thing could take place in this colony.

Mr Stevens thought the holdings were too small. He suggested the capitalisation of the amount of rent in arrear, and a graduated scale of, rental. All the amount could be wiped off. If the House were to grant the petition they would have to act similarly in other cases where reductions of rent would be askeH for.

Mr Lewis supported the amendment. He criticised the statements made in the Lands Report, which made the excuse that the settlers started without moans. That had been disproved by Mr Hogg's statement. Similarly, the statements in the report about the land becoming more and more fertile as it was cultivated were now shown to be contrary to fact. . '-.

Mr"R. M'Kenzie said the misfortune of Pomahaka was that it had been represented all along by a Tory member. Mr Hornsby: That does not make the land, any different. Mr R. M'Kenzie: Oh, doesn't it. It makes the tenants believe that they are very badly treated. That's what the '(Tory members do. Mr T.. Mackenzie: They have never done that. You don't know what you are talking about. Mr R. M'Kenzie went on to say that the matter should be - left to the Otago Land Board, and that the members of the Wellington Land Board should not interfere. The latter board, he said, was .the worst; Land Board in the colony, and the most hidebound body he knew. Mr Hogg: It's not so hidebound as your harbour board (Westport). 'Mr T. Mackenzie deulored the tone taken by the member for Motueka, because in the discussion that had taken place no reflections had been made on anybody. It was evident that he (Mr Roderick M'Kenzie) knew nothing about this subject.1 Ho paid a high tribute to the present member for Olutha, who, he said, had been studiously moderate in his demand in regard to Pomahaka. He pointed out" that, involved in this reduction ■of rent, was the whole question of the settlement of lands acquired by the Crown. They must secure a sufficient amount from the tenants to pay the interest on the cost of the estates acquired. If they could not do so-, then the whole system would receive a shock, and might eveu be imperilled. In the Uunback district the settlers had come to him and had asked him to promise a reduction in rentals, but hejiad told them he could not promise, as tho colony must get a rent to pay interest on cost. Tho remedy might be sought in obtaining cheaper money. Mr Bennet suggested letting the land m larger areas. The rents, he admitted, had been too high. The Minister of Lands- said when men had lost all their money and were in arrears with rent, nothing could be done with them. ■Sir Parata: Hand it over to the Maoris. They'll take it up. Mr Duncan continued that the settlers had ■ been given due latitude. The conclusion he had come to was that a number of these settlers could not carry on in .a way satisfactory to the country nor with benefit to themselves. He said the men who could not pay 3s 6d for land that would grow fair crops of oats and grass were not in his opinion much good as farmers. He opposed the amendment. It was a mistake to think that anybody could go on the land and be a farmer. Mr Flatman said the man sent un by the tenants coma prove nothing before the committee. He made various statements about the tenants having lost their money, but there was absolutely no proof of this. Many of the Canterbury farmers would be glad to swop places with the settlers on Pomahaka. He believed the Maoris could go on the land there, nay the rent, and make a good living. Mr M'Guire said a mistake had been made in the purchase of the land in the first instance. ' The land was not at all suitable. Mr James Allen said the Pomahaka settlers were men who understood farming. Besides, it was no argument to oppose the granting of necessary relief because of the alleged making of political ca.pital out of the failure of the settlement. The whole story was quite plain. The land had been bought at too high a price. However, they had had their say on that point, and he was quite agreeable to.sink all party discussion in order that they might do justice t,o these settlers. Men who had lost £100 or £1000 on the land were surely entitled to have a- chance to-work it at the reduced rental. Mr Duncan: We're not going to reduce it. Mr Allen said it could be proved that it was necessary to reduce the rents. The member for Motueka lived in a district that had fattened on colonial funds, yet ho had no sympathy for the hard-working pioneer settlers. It was the duty of the House to face the position. Mr Buddo Baid it was very evident that a mistake had boon made in the cutting \m of this land. It was only suitable for small grazing runs. Mr M'Nab said there was no doubt a number of tho Pomahaka settlers went on the land without enough capital. Mr Seddon said this was evidently a taste of what was to come from the Crown tenants. He blamed the Opposition for the position, because they had made a party cry of Pomahaka. He said he believed in acting reasonably in cases where any injustice had been done, but the matter* should bo decided between the Government and the persons concerned. He objected to bringing tho matter on tho lloor of the House in this manner. Such agitation would load Id the Crown tenants"becoming a political factor in the country. He suggested tho granting of larger areas to the settlers, and letting those crowded out got land elsewhere. He admitted that there had, been a mistake made by the Survey department in surveying and laying off the" sections. He objected to the insinuations made in regard to tho purchase of the estate. Had the Hon. John M'Kenzie been present some members, he said, would have got it hot that afternoon. He said tho Crown tenant* had bettor keep clear of Parliament and political pressure of any kind. He would resist anything of that kind. The

Government would adjust matters in the best interests of the State, and, he hoped, to the satisfaction of the tenants.

Mr O'Meara. attacked the Lands department. He had been endeavouring to get redress for settlers ever since he came into the House, but the department would do nothing.

Mr Hall-Jones said that many of the original Pomahaka settlers wore men who should never have taken up land. He went on speaking till two minutes to the adjournment, and Mr Thompson (Marsden) then persisted in addressing the House. The amendment was talked out.

The following is a copy of the notice sent to some of the settlers in arrears by the Chief Commissioner of Crown Lands: —

" I have to inform you that in accordance with tho Land Act. whenever a lease becomes forfeited by tho Land Board, the land, included in the same, with all improvements thereon, reverts to Her Majesty without any payment whatsoever to the lessee. You are therefore not entitled to any valuation being allowed you for the improvements on the said section. As you have been already informed, unless the amount in arrear is materially reduced before the end of tbis month the Crown will formally re-enter into possession of the sections. AVhen this is done the board will proceed to reopen the land in the usual manner. I desire you to clearly understand that when the matter proceeds the length of reopening the land you will be required to go out of occupation of the same.