LAND POLICY IN CENTRAL OTAGO.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20962, 27 February 1930, Page 2

LAND POLICY IN CENTRAL OTAGO.

TO THE EDITOR. Sib, —It- is a well known political dodge, almost childlike in its simplicity, to attempt to divert the efforts of writers into other channels, when these writers begin to comment on subjects which, in i most cases,' are not capable of bearing the x brunt of a rigid scrutiny, and .the ways and means adopted are many and varied, though none the. less obvious. Your correspondent "J. M.” would no doubt be glad were 1 to make him the subject of my remarks. It will be sufficient to show exactly that his purpose is-not altogether unassociated with that outlined above. In reply to a question of your correspondent "J. M.” in my letter of the 19th inst.. there appeared the following statement: “He.(‘J. M.') seems to be imbued with the idea that subdivision entails the evacuation of the land by the lessee, and it seems a pity to encroach on your space to inform any one misguided individual that the land-laws provide that the lessee is entitled to a preference block." Yet once again we see him, in his letter of the 22nd inst., pouring forth his parrot-like-lament:-—“What is more reasonable than to, give the people who have brought that portion of the estate to its present desirable condition preference to remain there if they wish? ” If there is any other matter concerning which "J. M.” might care to ask senseless questions, he would do well, in the first instance, to peruse the back issues of the Otago, Daily Times as from December 21. 1929. "If ‘ Subdivision,’" writes your correspondent Mr James Goodger, who up to the< present has maintained a singular silence on the subject, “would come out and write over his own name, I believe it would be seen that he is not interested in subdivision of land at all.” It has never been my intention to "come out” and indulge in any " mud-slinging ” campaign'such as might be prepared by Mr James Goodger or bis followers. It is the contention of Mr Goodger that the gross returns accruing from the sale of wool would not suffice to pay the rental of his run. Accordingly, if the rent charged in respect of the land is in excess of the productivity of the land, Mr Goodger has no goodwill to sell, and in consequence it behoves the United Government to resume the land, as no remuneration would be payable except certain moneys as compensation in respect of improvements such as fencing and buildings. The fact that a period of two years lias not yet elapsed since a suit for forfeiture of Mr Goodger’s water rights was instituted and his license was cancelled awing to his failure to use the water as specified in the schedule, is rather remarkable and tends to lend no support to Mr Goodger’s contention that be has been carrying out extensive irrigation in respect of his'estate.

Your readers will undoubtedly recall that I have, on a previous occasion, quoted the case of the Crown v. Lethbridge and others, and I may point out once again that the finding of the court was that where a renewal of lease had been oSered the Land Board had no option but to proceed to determine the rental by arbitration if the lessee objected The question of _ Mr Goodger and his family did not arise, and, in any ease, his agreement with the Crown was for a lease of the estate under review for a period of 21 years, and on the expiry of such lease, he was to receive preference for a block, and, of course, compensation tor such improvements as might be effected in the meantime, if the land should be required for the purposes of closer settlement. The Otago Land Board has now, contrary to public opinion, decided not to subdivide all that piece of land of some 19,450 acres which is held by Mr Goodger and is situate in the Lindis and Gulden survey districts, and has decided that the rental shall be £650, the new lease to be operative as from the expiry of the present lease. If Mr Goodger objects to the-board’s determination of the rental, the matter will be decided by arbitration, so that if the present Government is sincere in its promises the maximum amount payable by way of compensation to Mr Goodger would bo the difference between the rentals asked and-those decided upon and capitalised at S per cent. I have no hesitation in aftmmng that the applicants for a subdivision of “ Geordie Hill ” on those terms would be innumerable. Mr Goodger’s mathematics and Mr Walter Wilson’s alleged idea of the carrying capacity of the property seem not at all compatible with the_ qualifications which are generally attributed to men of their experience. I should not feel indisposed to admit that Mr Goodger cultivates a few turnips occasionally, but I am decidedly of opinion that sheep are not in the habit ot feeding on turnips more than about three months of the year when there is anything else to eat, and, as for suggesting that sheep derive any nutriment from 30 miles of netting—well, we will leave it at that. I f Mr Goodger or anyone else doubts the carrying capacity of Messrs Hyde Bros, run, a trip through the Lindis

Pass, in the land of sunshine/' as aptly described by an Otago Daily Times reporter, should convince nim. A perusal of the market reports will reveal the quality of lambs sent from this estate, from the moment the freezing works open, and also the class of bullocks trucked is a matter of such great difficulty for Mr Goodger to carry on, with land at 4d per acre and water rights gratis, his chance of success, given land at £4O per acre, much poorer in quality, and a water rate of 15s per acre, would be slight indeed. As Mr Goodger might contend that he has no knowledge of land 50 miles from Geqrdie Hill,” _we will go to that vicinity and ask him how he would like to pay £3OO per annum interest, £3O county rates and £25 per annum rental, besidesi 15s per acre for water, for about 150 acres of fair land and 400 acres of other land, say, for instance, in the Tarras district. It is a matter of no inconsiderable inthat Mr Goodger maintains he has subdivided his run -among his eons, and it is common knowledge that Messrs Hyde isros. erected their subdivisions! fence some years ago. Yet Mr Goodger’s relerence to _ his own run (supposed to be divided into three) and those of Messrs nydo Bros, jjs three runs seems mathematically absurd. Is it merely an error in arithmetic, or has Mr Goodger still got possession of the 20,000 acres himself :

What my motives are must surely be obvious, as public interest requires more protection to-day than it did 20 years ago, when Mr Goodger took so much trouble to prevent Mr Scaife from acquiring a few hundred acres lest this circumstance should have a “detrimental i-f al i 1 5" j° n the future subdivision of the 1 j?? . .Quote Mr Goodger, writing editorially m the Cromwell Argus of February 26, 1912. —I am, etc., n . Subdivision. Lrormvcll, February 24.