THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 1912. THE RUNANGA PURCHASE.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 15603, 5 November 1912, Page 4

THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 1912. THE RUNANGA PURCHASE.

Jin G, W. Russell is to be congratulated upon tho- report which the- Lands Committeo of tho House of Representatives has presented on the subject of tho purchase by the Ward Government of an area of hind in the Taupe- district, known as tho Runanga No. 1a block. In politics Mr Russell is classed as a staunch leaseholder. Ho has occasional lapses from the faith ho professes on the question of land tenures in its application to the public estate, as, for instance, when he opposed Mr Craigie's well-meant but injudicious effort this session to secure an affirmation by Parliament that no more Crown land should bo alienated ■ otherwise than by renewable lease. Rut generally ho is one of tho most voluble of the political advocates of the leasehold system, by which is, of course, to bo understood a system of State ownership of land that should bo settled under lease. No is also one of tho most vehement of the advocates of the subdivision of large estates and of the limitation of the area that may bo held by an individual. In practice Mr Russell does not adhere quite rigidly to the principles he enunciates in his speeches. A few years ago, as a matter of fact, he purchased the Runanga No. U block, and it was with a tremor of pride in his voice tnat he confided to the House last session the sense of strangeness he experienced when he found that this property of his own was included in a public return of the large estates of the country. Actually it comprised 64,000 acres, so that, although if was unimproved land, and, according to tho Government valuation in 1907, not worth more than 5s per acre, it was a distinctly substantial estate. In the same district are two blocks of Crown land, the I'nhukura and the Runanga. Xo. In. Apparently it was only through the acquisition by tlio Government of a portion of the Runanga Xo. 1a block that such access could he secured to tho Crown land as would admit of its being cut up in suitable areas. And, after a good deal of negotiation, the Government last year purchased a strip of the Xo. 1a block, paying* for it at the price of £2 10s per acre. The fact that Mr Russell had acquired the properly and that on the face of it the Government had given a literal figure for the strip which it purchased has been the subject of a certain amount of comment in Parliament—comment that led Mr Russell to challenge an inquiry into the transaction in order that he might have an opportunity of dispelling any suspicion of impropriety that might l)e supposed to rest upon him in connection with the purchase. 'Die report of the Lands Committee, which has

now been presented, is quite explicit on this matter. The committee has satisfied itself that the purchase, by the Government of the strip of land was desirable, and that the price paid for it was not excessive, and it lias also satisfied itrolf that it was on behalf of Mr Thomas Bnllin, the previous owner, that such negotiations as Mr Russell took part in for the sale wero conducted. Mr Russell was instrumental in inducing Mr Bollin to accept £2 10s per acre for the portion of the block desired by the Government, which had declined to pay the- sum of £4 per acre, originally asked by the owner, and to that extent ho apparently expedited tho sale of the land. Quite evidently there is no ground for the imputation that Mr Russell personally profited through the transaction—his own account, indeed, is that the value of the Runanga No. 1a block has been impaired through tho loss' by it of tho strip acquired by the Government,—and, as the Lauds Cominittco has acquitted him of having exercised any undue influence upon tho Government in order to effect tho sale, tho result of tho investigation must bo held to bo as satisfactory as ho confidently predicted it would be,