MORE INVERCARGILL EVIDENCE.

Otago Witness, Issue 2660, 8 March 1905, Page 15

MORE INVERCARGILL EVIDENCE.

STRONG SUPPORT OF THE FREEHOLD TENURE.

INVERCARGILL, February 25

The Land Commission returned to Invercargill this morning from Orepuki, and held a meeting in the Land Board room, all the members ' being present.

Duncan Murchison, farmer on the Orawia Settlement, Merrivale, said he held 183 acres under lease in perpetuity. The settlers, he explained, were leaded for certain roads included in the estate, and felt that under the circumstances the charge was unjust. As to the freehold, he was strongly of opinion the system should be altered to give the right of purchase. It would give the settlers more heart to farm their land. At present some persons took up land with the express intention of cropping it as much as possible and then throwing it up. Of course the regulations did not allow anything of that sort, but it was not easy to enforce them. He believed there were an odd one or two settlers in the district now who were taking as much as they could otit of the land. In the past men had told him they intended to take up land and crop it for all it was worth and then leave it. If people had the right of purchase they would not work their land in that way ; on the other hand, they would be encouraged to improve their land. Generally speaking, the Merrivale Estate had been a success. It had* a good class of settlers, and the land was good.

Allan M. Carrnichael, farmer, Lilburn Valley, said he held 3600 acres of freehold, which, he worked as a run. The flats were very narrow, like those to be found in the> middle of Itawke's Bay. It was the general desire of his neighbours to obtain the freehold instead of being under the lease in perpetuity. At one time £8000 was borrowed to make a bridge at Clifden, but the money was expended on roads, and not too wisely. Afterwards the Government made up tor it by giving a special grant to put up the bridge, which was the life of the place. The smaller settlers had a complaint — namely, that their holdings were not large enough. He believed it would be a benefit to the country if the Crown tenants had the. right of purchase. It would not create any revolution in the money market. It would give an impetus to settlement, and people would take an interest in the land they held. With regard to Land Boards, he thought that to depart from the nominated system would be a mistake. Elective Land Boards would not work at all. One .did not know what influence might creep in, and only partly-elected boards would be the worst system of all. There would be conflicting ''interests on the board, and it would be nothing but a bear garden. He believed, however, it would be a good thing to have some form of appeal body, so that when the interests of landlord and tenant conflicted the matter might be looked into before forfeiture took place. "The Chairman remarked that at present an aggrieved tenant could appeal to the Minister. Witness said that was not satisfactory. The Minister must be guided by the Land *Board and by the Commissioner of Crown Lands. It might be workable to take the chairman of the two County Councils, the stipendiary magistrate sitting with them to guide them in the law. The chairman of the two councils, he thought, should be elected under the electoral roll, so that the electors as well as the ratepayers would have a voice in the matter.

To Mr M'Cutchan: He did not mean to say that the Land Boards were not representative of the various interests under the act, but at the same time he would like to see the appeal body formed to deal with contingencies that, might arise. If at any time a board had to take a harsh step it would be a, satisfaction to it to know that another body elected by the people had ratified its action.

Mr Johnston: In your district are the settlers satisfied with their condition of -life and tenure? Witness: Yes, generally speaking they are. Wool is bringing a good r>rice and sheep are selling well. i They are making comfortable livings? — Yes. Are they doing well? — Fairly well. They are not doing very well ; they are making ', both ends meet. - John Driscoll, farmer, Mataura, said he held 210 acres under lease with the right of purchase. He had been eight months ion his present holding, having previously been at Highbank, Canterbury, where he j had 73 acres. He sold out his interest there to get a larger holding. He desired to get' 1 land at Edendale, but on making inquiries he found the restrictions were different from the restrictions in force where he took up his land at Highbank, and, finding them such a-9 they were, he took the offer of the holding he was now on. He believed the lease in perpetuity was the best tenure anyone oould have, because the money a man had to pay out for procuring land oould be better employed on a leased farm. The Government bought the Highbank land eight years ago at £6 10s an acre, and the land was worth double that sum now. The Government would make no mistake if it purchased other estates of the same kind. Although he held a lease in perpetuity, he had no difficulty in selling. The price he got gave him value for his improvements and something for goodwill. Under the lease in perpetuity it was possible to get an advance independent of the improvements, so that a tenant was better off under it than under any othpr tenure, or at anyrate he was equally well off, because the merchant would advance fnoney as long as the tenant held the lease. As for the Land Boards, he thought -it would only he justice to the settlers if they had a voice in the decisions of the boards, so that any grievances they had could be brought forward by their membex.

Mr Forbes : You think it would he more satisfactory if there was a j-opie-entative of the crown tenants on the Land Boards? — Witness : Yes.

Mr Matheson : Do you think a satisfactory way of appointing that member would bo for tho County Councils to ha\e the nomination of suitable men, and the Government to appoint one of their nominations? — Witness : I do not think the County Councils should have any say in the matter. The tenants are the people who phoulcl have ropre-entation, and not the County Coun6i!s.

Mr -v : I understood the witne.** to say thcio was no difficulty in getting money upon the lease-in-pcrpetuity tenure ovon when no improvements were made?— Witness : Yes.

What is your warrant for making that statement? — I had a neighbour at Highbank who was in difficulties. He wanted imple-

ments for his farm, and when he took his lease to town he was able to raise £110 on the face value of it.

■ It was really on the unearned increment that he got-the advance? — No doubt. J&c Anstey said it ought to be made clear "that the money was not got from the Srovernment lending office, but privately. Thas. Lyons Oswin, officer in charge of .-thftafiovernnient Advances to Settlers Office -And Uovernmenit Valuation Office, said that -fhe valuations of the Valuation Otticc were for the most part obtained from the valuations cf 1897. That was practically the case «with regard to county valuations. Of -course, revaluations were made now and :again in respect to Crown leaseholders that came under the notice of the department. There had been an* increase in value as -ompared with the time tenants took them. up. Some of the increases were large and some trifling. One ease he noted on fche -roll that day which, not wishinsr to mention maires,, he would show to the chairman.

The Chairman: I see that the owner's "in rarest was £277 in 1888, and now it is 7SmB. "SYitce?*: That is the interest that has •acoru*>d to the lessee. It is the goodwill -on which one witness said money was lent. 'Continuing, witness paid, a* regards the unearned increments on Crown leases, it was ■fairly marked in the Matakanui Riding 'ifVincent County), which was under the Southland office, principally en account -of tl-e Ofaeo Central railway now tapping that district. Some of the leases, varying from 20 years down, showed double, as much, a? they were taken up at, with the -result that considerable interest had accrued to" the lessees. The increase in land value was 4Q per cent, higher than in 1901. With Tegard to the Advances to Settlers Office, "he wished +o refer to a statement made the -other day by a witness named Hilton, who •said his valuation was £600. The - departrment's valuation of the improvements was £220. and the house was not then com--pleted. The anplicrnt wanted a loan of £100. which was declined, but he accepted •an offer of £75. In the case of the witness '-O'Connor, it anpeaied from his evidence 'that he had applied for a loan on 750 acres. That was not the case. He applied for » iloan on 400 acres, and instead of his imtprovements being £265 they were found by She valuer to be £155. An a.pnhcaticn for a loaJi of £70 was declined. When the ■valuer went out he found no buildings on the land, the applicant having moved them to another Crown lease section adjoining. •A witness that morning said that money had been lent on the unimproved value or the goodwill. He (Mr Oswin) did not think -the Advances to Settlers Board would lend -on that security. Another point he would like to mention was this: Several settlers "had come to the office expecting to borrow •on leases which had not run for one« year. Section 185 of the act provided that this - could not be allowed. He did not know -where the settlers got the idea, but they •-all came from, the same locality. It was ■the board in Wellington that decided whether an application would be declined ior not.

To Mr M'Cutchan: In every case in ■ which application was made the valuer was • not sent out if it was known that appli- - oant had no improvements If a person csould. not show £50 of improvements the

valuer was not sent out, because the department did not want to take the applicant's fee.

To Mr Anstey: The department did not lend on stock or implements. It lent vp to 50 per cent, on fixed improvements, for which the tenants were entitled to compensation.

To Mr Forbes: The department did not, as 'far as witness knew, prefer the lease-in-pefpetuity and the right-of-purchas© lease. The valuations on the rating roll might be l\vo years old, and it would not be fair to the department or to the tenant to take that roll. The law provided that valuation must be up to date. James Miller, of Hedgehope, said he had been in tnat district for 30 years. He had an area of 2000 acres, of which 1500 acres were freehold. He supported the freehold system or a lease with the option of making it freehold. He favoured the present constitution of Land Boards. Alexander Piper, district valuer, baid he had occupied that position about five years. Prior to that date he was a farmer. He wished to say something in connection witn the evidence of the witness O'Connor, who had complained that he could not get aloan from the Advances to Settlers Office. The fact was that when O'Connor asked for a loan he said there had been no alteration since the last valuation, and when witness inspected the place he found the house had been shifted. That was why the application was not granted. This aiternoon the commissioners left for Stewart Island, accompanied by Messrs J. A. Hanau and J. C. Thomson, M.H.R s., and evidence will be taken there to-night. They return to Invercargill on Sunday night, and on Monday leave for Otautau, where they will inspect the Mernvale Estate in the afternoon and take evidence on Tuesday.