LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 16645, 17 March 1916, Page 6

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.

THE WAIHEMO AND WAITAKI RUNS: "THE ACTUAL RECORDS." Sib,—ln answer to your note in th» morning's Daily Times, I beg k> state that you have been led astray by the sources of your information. Runs 109, 255, and 217 c, Waitaki and Wajhemo Counties, are not' "at the back of the Kafcanui Mountains," but form part of that range. They run from the top of the range to the Otepopo River, and face the north-east The original run extended from the source of the Shag River to the present run, and it was the highest portion of the run that was cut up into small grazing runs. Note that fact. In no case Have toe runs been used for summer country only, but most of the country has been used for wintering hoggets, and ewes are ran on the southwestern .slopes of the same range. You say that, without the freehold, it cannot be worked, and that the carrying , -capacity does not exceed 5000 sheep. My opinion is different, and I am prepared to back it by giving , £600 per annum for the lease. That there are no homestead sites, I admit, for the frontage is freehold; bat there are about 10 small grazing runs in the same district, and on only ono r ia there a homestead. That the runs are suitable for subdivision is borne out by tlio fact that & large number of practical men petitioned the Minister of Lands to have them subdivided. There is a formed road right to the run. That the runs aro absolutely safe from f snow, and that they consist of low-lying, warm country, within two miles from Green Yalley School and Post Office, are facts which, no "actual records" can refute, and which I am prepared to prove. With reference to your correspondent "Honour to Whom Honour is Due," I have nothing to do with'him. My critkasmv is not the private character of anyono, but the administration of Crown Land. His letter reveals his publio and private character, and he can only, I think, be described in one word, "sycophant."—l am, etc., H. Baylt.

[Our correspondent's opinion as to the carrying capacity of the runs is worthless, in face of .the official records, which show, it to be what we have stated. If his judgment in this respeot is defective, his inaccuracy in his so-called "facts" is, if he is, as we assume, acquainted with the country, even more deplorable. For, when ho ,de- ' clares that the runs are free from, snow, we suggest to him that it 'must be within his knowledge that there have been such seriously heavy losses of sheep from snowVon the runs that, under the Pastoral Tenants' llelief Act, with the concurrence of Sir John M'Kenzie, who had no prejudices in favour of the runholder, the Land Board extended the lease for 21 years as an. ' act of compensation. In the fac© of this, . Mr Bayly's offer to prove that the rains aro "absolutely safe from snow, consisting o£ low-lying," warm country," stamps him as a witness whose statements <lo not merit serious consideration. There aro other assertions in his letter, which, if it were necessary, could be refuted, but, , really, the need does not exist, for Mr!Bayly has completely "given himself away."—El). O.D.T.]

NATIONAL SHIRKING. Sib,—We all agree with your correspondent " Progress" that adequate provision must bo made for our returned soldiers, but this is not the subject that (i was dealt with under the above heading. "Progress" states, and quotes Mr Bonar Law in eup- i port of his statement, that Britain does not want money, but only the products that money can buy. Mr Bonar Law is not. likely to h:ive made such a futile statement. Britain does want money. The Chancellor of the Exchequer will take 15s from anyone who will lend it to him, and has warned people that they may bo called on to placo half their incomes at the disposal of the Government. If Britain does not want money why did sho boiTow £100.000.000 from America at an interest rate of almost o per cent. She does want it; and New Zealand could provide a considerable amount,, but the Government will not take the seeps necessary to enable or to compel her to do so. "Progress" eays our "clear duty is to stimulate tho produetion of necessaries io the utmost." This is our duty, but not our first duty. If it is placed first it is wrong to send a singlf man aw.ay to fight, as every man who gees lessens tho volume of production. Our clear first duty is to us© all our resources to win the war. Subject to that other duties have a place. Americans or Dutchmen may feel, like " Progross," that it is their "clear duty to ' stimulate tho production of necessaries" because it pays them to do so. Surely the attitude of New Zealand should not bo identical with that of n neutral. "Progress " does not even suggest that we should knd Britain our products till the end of tho war. This, of_ course, would be exactly the samo as lending money, and is what wn ought to do. Siv Joseph Ward is reported to have said in Gore that on a per capita basis Now Zealaad, in sending 50,000 troops to fight, had done better than any other part of the Empire, It may be said with creator confidence that no part of the Empire has done so little as New Zealand in providing funds to carry on the wnr. Tho "co-araT of the individual soldier is in markrd contrast to the financial poltroonery of the Government. Ono wonders how long the people will consent to accept quietly the humiliating position in which the Government is placing them.— , I am, etc., Jakes Bbcg. Liberton, Mosgiel.