THE FAILURE OF POMAHAKA.

Otago Witness, Issue 2664, 5 April 1905, Page 16

THE FAILURE OF POMAHAKA.

INTERESTING EVIDENCE AT CLINTON.

Thomas Taylor, farmer, with 4000 acres freehold, approved of the present constitution of Land Boards if the selections made were more representative of the districts. He thought the freehold the best tenure. There we-re advantages connected with it superior to the leasehold. The latter was a good tenure to settle poor men on tho land, but these men should be given the right to purchase. That would be of advantage to the farmer, and what was good; for him would benefit the State. The " loading " on Pomahaka settlement had been too heavy.

To Mr Paul : If bad times came, and a lasehokler saw he was likely to be bested, be would not take the same interest in hist land as a freeholder. The freeholder would work night and day to keep possession of his land.

To Mr Ans-py : He would not sell an acre of an education endowment.

John Clarke, farmer, with 950 acres freehold, said, in regard to tenure, he was a freeholder out-and-out. He did not think the lease-in-perpetuity was a good tenure at all. It was neither fair to the country nor to the people. — (Applause from the farmers present, which the chairman promptly suppressed.) Witness continued that the' lpase-in-perpetuity was simply a bastard freehold and not good for anybody He approved of a leasehold with the rig-ht of purchase. He thought the land-ownevs should be given any encouragement. They were the backbone of the country. All the large land-owners in tho district were only too anxious to soil their lands. The Advances to Settlors Department had done good service, but just at pres-ent settlers could not get a copper out of it. The Go\ernment was too hard up. The sections at Pomahaka were too small, and the land was £1 an acre too dear. That was the reason of the failure of the settlement. He thought th-e Government was payinsr too much for land. They had bepn "had " up and down the country. The Pomahaka settlement had been a failure, and theie were other failures, in Southland, for instance. Two thousand acres of Pomahaka were at present unoccupied. The Government might be getting a few shillings out of it occasionally, but not much. It mighti be successful at a rental of 2s 6d an acre. Be thought it would be all taken up at that price, especially if the right to purchase were sriven. Donald M'Gregor. a )oa=o-in-perpotuity settler on Pomahaka. said he v.-ps dissatisfied with his lon .p. He v.oulil not buy his nie=ent farm. The land was no arocd. and ho would nc\or get valuo> for h> improvements. A man could make a decent living

out of 250 acres on Pomahaka. The Advances to Settlers Department had refused advances to Pomahaka settlers ? stating that their land, even with the improvementsadded, was not worth the rents they were paying. He had seen these reasons given in writing. One of them had been sent to the late Sir John M'Eenzie, and he had said he would get tie settler a loan in spite of it. The loan was then granted, fcut the department kept back rent in adTance, so that the settler only got some £5, and was so disgusted that he left the district. The 10 per cent, reduction was no advantage to the man on Pomahaka, because he was not in a position to pay his rent promptly. Several of the settlers who were in arrears _ with their rent allowed their sections to be forfeited, and afterwards re-selected them. They thus came in as new tenants, and got out of their arrears of rent. — (Laughter.) The Government had grown a crop of turnips to show the settlers what ±Ec ground would do. The result was not a payable one. The official reports that had come into his hands from Wellington were all falsified. When a settler was more anxious 'to leave a settlement than to remain* he" could" "not be a "bona fide settler. That" "was fhe present position in regard to Pomahaka. In revaluing the forfeited sections the Government reduced the improvements, but did not reduce the— rent. . . ... Joseph Allen Anderson, farmer and valuer, said that seven years ago he valued the Pomahaka. land for the Valuation Department. This value wae 5s an acre less than what the Government paid for the estate. Th© land had been purchased at too groat a cost, and had been too heavily loaded. He did not know where the money which formed the- '" loading " had gone. It could never have been spent on the estate-. The Government did the roading. Old county contractors could have done the xvork at half the cost. Witness had a half interest in 2500 acres of freehold, and also dn a pastoral run./' He had an idea that the Crown should hold all the land in the country, but it had already parted with the freehold. A rent of 2s 6d an acre would be enough for the Pomahaka land. The present rental was about 3s 4d. Witness had valued one section for the Advances to Settlers Department. A loan of £100 was asked for. Witness valued the improvements at from £250 to £260. The settler was entitled to more than £100 on this. Witness was then asked what the goodwill in the shape of improvements was worth. He replied that the property with its improvements would not let at more than the unimproved value. The tenant therefore had no goodwill, and the> load was refused. The witness M'Gregor at this stage produced very satisfactory testimonials from, the late Mr James Smith, of Greenfield, and Mr Mitchell, of Clydevale. He wished to prove that he was not an incompetent settler, as the Government had given as one reason for the failure of Pomahaka that the settlers were ignorant, thriftless, and imprudent. That was not the case. Mr Paul said everyone who had seen Mr M'Gregor's farm that day would be quiteof the opinion that he was a practical, hardworking farmer. — ("Hear hear" from the members of the commission.) Edward Clements, another Pomahaka eettler, said he wished to get out of the settlement. He believed in the option of 4-he freehold. He said the roading had been done by co-operative labour, and some of the men were incompetent. John Herriott, another settler, 6aid the roading on the settlement had cost £6000. He could have done the work for half that. Mr Barron, Crown Lands Commissioner, denied that any of the official reports about Pomahaka had been falsified. Mr M'Gregor emphatically reiterated that an official report sent to him from Wellingtion, in which Pomahaka was referred to, was false. The improvements were wrongly stated, and other information was wrong. The report was before Mr Barron's time. He promised to forward a copy to the commission. Mr Barron had been an excellent j

officer. I