LAND FOR THE LANDLESS.

Otago Witness, Issue 2661, 15 March 1905, Page 11

LAND FOR THE LANDLESS.

The following letter appears in Monday's Daily Times : — TO THE EDITOR. Sm, — Your latest subheader on the question of closer settlement in Central Otago . will be read both with pleasure and interest by the large number of people^ interested in this very serious question. That leader and the letter signed " Historian " must be my excuse for troubling you again, for I find my small contribution to what might be termed the literature of the landless comes in for a large share of attention. In the first place I desire to thank you for your defence of myself against the unwarranted assertion of "Historian"' thac my letter contained, or seemed to contain, an implication of motives otherwise than honest to the late Sir John M'Kenzie in his dealings 'with those lands. You are quite correct in assuming that I had no such idea in my head, nor is there the slightest foundation in anything I said to warrant anyone in assuming- such a thing. You, Sir, can bear me out when I say that I am, and always have been, a warm admirer of the late Sir John M'Kenzie and his land policy, and in the very letter "Historian" refers to I referred to him as the best Minister NewZealand had seen since Mr Donald Reid's days. Permit me to tell " Historian " that I am so constituted that I cannot deal in innuendo, and that I am too much cf a Briton to libel a dead man. At the same time I am not going to be deterred by any tactics such as those adopted by "Full Back " and " Historian " from saying thab Sir John M'Kenzie committed an error when he locked away from the people such ideal small grazing-run country as Puketoi and Blackstone Hill. " Historian " treats your readers to an able and well-written history of Sir John M'Kenzie's public life as a land reformer. Up to a certain -point his statements and mine agree, and that is the point at which Sir John chanced his views regarding th^ lands of Central Otago. We are also both agreed that he did change, or at any rate that his action in locking up those lands was hardly consistent with the outlined policy on which the people of Central Olago returned him to Parliament. The reason I gave I repeat. Just about that time, Sir John M'Kenzie got into full swing with his land for settlement business. Tn the success of that he got wrapped uw. The consequence was that he honestly began to believe that people would be better served by becoming agricultural farmers on. the estates resumed by the GovernmenC and as a consequence he rel-et the large runs up here, and the land was tied up against a waiting public. To prove to you that I know what I am talking about I may tell you that I had a conversation with Sir John the evening of the day on which he selected the site for the town cf Ranfurly in Maniototo. He then said to me that he would not take 10,000 acres cf land and try to be a settler en that pla ; n, and no argument would convince him. But how much was that opinion worth as against the handsome price given not long since for Messrs Hambly Bros. Maniototo Fstate at the same place? And what are the facts about settlement in Maniototo? Tho, farmers are all doing well. Sir John M'Kenzie had hardly ever been in Maniototo before he became ovlt member, and his trips afterwards were necessarily hurried and his inspection perfunctory. But what has all this ancient history to do with today's issue? At that time the railway was only at Hyde. At that time«evervthing was below zero. Wool was cheap, sheen ivere hardly saleable, tho long cycle of dry seasons had devastated the country; and a man iike Sir John M'Kenzio, shrewd though he might be, was led away by appearances, whilst his Conservative Land Board was ever opposed to closer settlement in the interior Those, Sir, are the facts, and if you vo not as?ree with me I think you must admit that I have advanced some solid argument from my point of view.

In your article you refer to the fact that you misunderstood our position. Will >on pardon me if I say — and I =poak on behalf of the petitioners when I say it — that, with all due deference to your wisdom, we mu-t point out that for years pa«t the whole settlement here has been on the 'ma!! grazing-run and lease-in-perpetuity systems and for larger area=. It was not for us io dictate the form of settlement — indeed, wo understand that Blackstone Hill is already purveyed, arid that it is let subject to one year's noticeC It is not usual in a petition to dictate the form of tenure. That is usually decided after a commission f'om the Land Board has visited the localities and heard the views of petitioners. In my own opinion the areas on Blackstone Full could lie those of moderately small grazing runs. The land is "all low-lying, " sal'-v " ridgos — the very ereme dc ia crcrne of shr>"r>farming country. In cutting up the other lands the tenviies shou'd be arranged jiccoi \- ing to location and quality of land, and that is a matter for, as you put it, careful consideration by any commission appointed. None of the land except Home Hills is as high as Patearoa, which was nished lj^fc

year when opened, whilst Black ---tone Hill is seconu only to Puketoi as salty — Al. lov. - j lying, glazing land. 'i Now, Sir, a few facrs such as those are ! worth hughe's of ?,nciont history, and 1 j claim for them due consideration. In n;n- j duct ng this correspondence: I have all rk>rig ! tried to do so as becomes a man with some, sonse of responsibility; and I flatter myol' that my letters have not been devoid of interest, inasmuch as I find myself assailed by "Full Bacli " and "Historian." Permit mo to assure those two anary correspondents that I haie as much of the milk cf human kindness in my composition as m^sfc men, and that I would be the last t.aij, to do any injustice to any man, bo he king or beggar. What I have written has 1 evn written with no other motive than a thoro'igh belief in my subject. And I factor myself that impartial readers, and you, tco. S ; r, will admit that I have kept very fairly to my subject, and refused from fir=t to j last to make the matter a personal one — indeed, the tone of ail the letters wri^ren on our side of the question has been of a non-personal character, the " unspeakable squatter " bu«ine-s being thrown down by the other side as a sort of turn-thc tide dodge, and it has failed. I absolutely lefusa to discuss anything but the fitne« of iho j land for closer sett'ement and the duty of j the Government in that respect.— l am. etc. j Son of the Tussocks. ; The English mail which- left Melbourne i on February 1 arrived in London on M?reh