Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

LAND SETTLEMENT.

A certain portion of the recent debate on the Financial Statement turned largely on a question of compai'afcive success in land settlement, comparative we mean as between the present Government and their predecessors durLig equal periods, of time. We have taken seme pains to get at the truth, which h in itself important, to say nothing of the curious claims made on behalf of tho present Government that a special feature of their policy has been their success in settling the land. There cau be no questioning the fact that these claims must now be abandoned. The Government may or may not have done the best they could, but the fact remains that they have not, with all the private estates they have purchased, done as much as their predecessors ovor a similar period with nothing at all but the Crown lands for disposal. The two chief disputants in this matter were Mr Scobie Mackenzie —who led the attack on the land administration —and the Hon. John M'Kenzie, who replied; but other speakers, notably Messrs Lewis and Massey, contributed a good deal of information on tne subject. Mr Scobie Mackenzie compiled a table of figures on land settlement, which he set out both before the country and in the House. In these days members have fco compile tables for themselves if thoy want to get information at all; the Government continually refuse returns, especially if they are not likely to tell 1j» favour of themselves. Mr Mackenzie claimed for his table that it was "substantially" correct, and that it was so can be seen by setting it out as delivered and comparing it as it emerged

— The debris left from coral made into articles of jewellery, &c, is crushed, cenled, and sold as a tooth powder at a high price by Italian perfumers. — A German biologist has calculated that the human brain contains 300,000,000 nerve colls, 5,000,000 of which die and are succeeded by new ones every day. At this rate we get an entirely new brain every 60 days. Gold! Gpld! Gold! Gold! Bright and yellow, hard and cold ! Thousands of rich people would give all they possess to have Nature's wealth — " Good Health." Consumption frequently starts with a nasty ±ittle cough. A bottle of Woods's Great Peppermint Cure will stop this or any kind of cough. Yes, stop it at once. Go to the store and get a bottie straight *jiay— it's only Is 6cL

from the criticisms of the Minister with Lhe department at his back : —

It will thus be seen that the table of the senior member for Dunodin was correct for all the purposes of comparison. The chief error was in the firsb year — 1878 — and that was against himself. From th 9 year 1890 downward — from which period the returns of the department are more methodically set out — the table is correct. The apparent discrepancy in the forfeitures of last year — 1897 — is due to an error of the department, v/hich the Minister for Lands rather disingenuously endeavoured to fasten on to the member for Dunedin. That gentleman gave the number correctly as 813, but an Auckland officer of the department in that year included 142 surrenders which he says "by a curious oversight" really belonged to some years long gone past — he does not know which years. Now it is quite obvious that the Minister for Lands could not attack the table generally, and therefore he confined himself to attacking the quality of settlement in 1878 in Canterbury. That was a "boom" year, and the lands of Canterbury were open for purchase at 40s per acre. There was no "gridironing" then; even the Minister admits that had been stopped by law — it was Mr RoLkESTON who put an end to it — but there was "spotting," whicti was simply free selection, and legal. Now Mr Scobie Mackenzie gave ths substantially correct figures for that year — he understated them, as a matter of fact — but the Minister's point is that the numbers did not really represent separate purchasers. The departmental report, however, does not show that ; on the contrary it gives a glowing account of the settlement ; mentions thivt there were 4151 "purchasers" in Canterbury in that year. It goes on to sjy that the large settlement was due to three things — first; that the land was open for selection; secondly, that the railway was constructed through the plains; and thirdly, that the rivses had been bridged; and it winds up by saying that the pasture plains of Cante 1 : bury were being rapidly turned into "wheat fields for the London market." If the senior member for Dun?:li:i bad happened to omit both 1878 and l.S7i) his deductions from his table would havebeen every whit as accurabe and effective, and the Minister for Lands would not have had a word to say in his own defence. And as a matter of fact Mr Scobie Mackenzie left 187S out of coasideration both in the House and whsn speaking here when comparing the settlement of the Government with that of their predecessors ; and he was right in doing so, because that year "stood alone" as the only one of Sir George Grey's time : for it is not to be forgotten that the year complained of was a "Liberal" year — Sir George^ Grey was Premier., Mr Ballance Trea- j surer, and Sir Robert, then Mr, Stout ! Minister for Lands. The Minister for j Lands appears to have been most disingenuous in his speech. He had in his hand a table prepared by the .department giving the names of several of the so-called "spotters" of that year, but in the House he omitted all reference (though it appears in Hansard) to his own colleague, the Hon. W. C. Walker, who, with his brother, is down for no fewer than 60 applications. Let us now, however, take Mr Scobie Mackenzie's table as corrected by the Minister and his department, and see what the result will turn out to be. Let us go further and take the Minister's analysis of the settlement of 1878 and 187P, reducing tho settlement to its true proportions— a_ task, let us here say, which it was not post-ible for

Niiaro and Blvie sell f< Jadoo," tlie magic plant grower, and which should be used by ill growers of flowers and plants, whether in pots or in the open border. Thousands of tons of " Jadoo " are used every year for growing plants, and when better known nabbing else will be used,.— AdvU

anyone to do for these 21 years — until the Minister got the information apparently by telegrams extending over days from his department. The years would come out thus : —

Now substitute these figures for those of the first two years in Mr Scobie Mackenzie's table, and the general comparison comes out as under (1878 — Sir Geop.gb Grey — being again necessarily omitted because it stands by itself) : —

The Minister for Lands may shuffle the figures as he chooses, but this is as they work out aftei- all his corrections are made. Before leaving the figures it might be right to say that it seems to us that in the forfeitures for the present year both the Minister for Lands and Mr Scobie Mackenzie are wrong in iii- \ eluding 46 forfeitures of pastoral runs, i v/hich are not in the computation anj--where else, not being settlement. The fact revealed is that settlement has declined under the Government, and that forfeitures have enormously increased. And anyone who chooses to turn to table 46 in the present year's report can see that the forfeitures are by far the j greatest in the systems the Minister ! for Lands himself invented — such as small farm associations — and with which his predecessors had nothing to do. This is set forth by Mr Lewis, membsr for Chrislchurch, in a concise form. And ifc is significant that the Minister in the course of his speech was glad to I claim that his settlement "compared ! favourably" with that 6i his predecessors — a very great climb down from the pretensions hitherto put forth as to what lie had achieved in settlement. The tables of his own latest report — especially 41 (which gives the figures for 10 years) — show this not to be the case, and tney are well worth a little study.

w> . • uS S " 3 g-S "m « O 2714 50 22' 7 M 3 212(5 22S 2i07 470 a, to .• m 5 " 1 Ministry in Office. gg 1 * 2r,61 Hall-Atkinson ... five year 3 2173 Stout-Vogel „. four » 1596 Atkinson four n 163 L Ballance-Seddon... seven n

fear. 1878 1879 New Settlers. 3451 3518 1 orfeiturcs and Surrenders. 4t 20 Net Settlement. 3(37 34QS

CO^SiWK-WtUl— © 0 00-4 US Ulh-.»» Kit— ODCO Year. el '£ Mi-itOMtstsl-'J-JWt3JOtCJ-'J>3.tOJ^.osW_tO_CTJ=> „ ... - Q Sit m^kShoowbokicuochmuo*. Forfeiture?. :S BSiSeSSSi3S¥Sfs2i2"sf2aSagSS Settlers. 52 i-.HJdOMtStOMI-'WMtOtO.t-'WjajOWI.SH-W^l h3 \"^t ~ Surrenders ojjii!« o uit:£3c:S~4iOf-:K;*.-<i>s.--)i- | H-<c-.0-.i-tsotii Net | S,«S Settlers. ' gn

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/OW18980922.2.12.1

Bibliographic details

Otago Witness, Issue 2325, 22 September 1898, Page 4

Word Count
1,479

LAND SETTLEMENT. Otago Witness, Issue 2325, 22 September 1898, Page 4

LAND SETTLEMENT. Otago Witness, Issue 2325, 22 September 1898, Page 4

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert