EVIDENCE AT LAWRENCE.

Otago Witness, Issue 2664, 5 April 1905, Page 17

EVIDENCE AT LAWRENCE.

The Land Commission left Tapanui on Friday afternoon at 1 o'clock, and arrived at Lawrence at half-past 7 o'clock.

At a meeting of the Tuapeka branch of the Farmers' Union on Friday night, Messrs A. Fraser, W. Osborne, and J. Robertson were appointed to represent the union at the meeting of the commission.

The commission sat at the Lawrence Courthouse on Saturday morning. Alexander Fraser, chairman of the Tuapeka branch of the Farmers' Union, said he had 174- acres of freehold at Clark's Flat. He also held 26 acres under lease with tho right of purchase. He had been 36 years in tho district. He was of opinion that nominated Land Boards were the best, if judiciously carried out. He had aLvays had the feeling, however, that polities decided some matters that came before the board. Tho district should be divided into wards, with, a member on the board from each ward. In the past several districts in Otago had not been sufficiently considered when nominations were being made. Central Otago ought to be represented. The freehold tenure was the best for the country, because by that means a more contented people were secured for the land, and they would put more energy into their operations than they would if they were on a leasehold. If any change was to take place in the systems of land tenure in the future ho would suggest that they should bo reduced to five — namely, temporary license, lease of arable lands with right of purchase on deferred payments, deferred-payment system pure and simple, homestead system, and pastoral lease The homestead system could be applied to lands that were not of much value. Under the pastoral license the lands should be divided into areas that could be profitably occupied. The pastoral lands not so well grassed as they used to be. Resting would, no doubt, do them good, and surface-sowing would also assist. He thought Land Boards should have full discretion to deal with the relaxation of conditions regarding terms of residence, improvements, cultivation, and so on. The boards should bo entirely free of Ministerial control. He had noticed by th© paper that some of "the latest nominees had advocated the leasehold, although they held freeholds themselves. Two members of the Otago Board gave evidence to that effect. Another member was wary enough not to give evidence. Ho had a strong suspicion that monib-ers of Land Boards were appointed to carry oat th© aims of th© party in power.

In aihivcr to questions, witness said there wero area. 5*5 * of land in the Tuapeka district that could be occupied under the homestead sjstem. He did not support the giouping. Every applicant ought to bo nllov.cd to apply for the section he wished to take. up. Ho was opposed to loading lancK for roading purposes, partly for the iea=.on that the- roads included in these lands belonged to th© public as a whole;

and to saddle a settler with interest on the expenditure of these roads for all time waa iniquitous. He believed that if Pomahaka had not been so heavily loaded it migTifc have been a success. Much of the money spent on roads under co-operative system was squandered, and the poor settler had to pay for it. Loading ought to be abolished, and tho cost of the roads made a colonial charge. He did not think the value of land had increased in the district, although tha Valuation Department had put up tha values. There had been very little exchange of land. He knew that some settlers had nad difficulty in getting money froni the Advances "to Settlers Office. He believed that in some oases political pressure had been brought to bear on behalf of certain applicants before they could obtain an advance. The institution of the. office had resulted in the reduction of interest to borrowers. The aggregation of estates was not going on in the district to any extent. In reference to the Greenfield Estate-, witness saicl~ there were two points in connection with it that he would like to bring before the commission. A good road to Greenfield would add greatly to its probability of success. The principal road to» the estate branched off the Main road, three miles from Lawrence. The nearest portion of the estate was about eight miles, from Lawrence. There was another matter; Greenfield was in the Bruce County. Formerly half of it was in the Tuapeka CountyIf the> Government did not make a road to> the estate the ratepayers of Tuapeka would be saddled with the keeping up of a road; for the settlers on Greenfield. It would b"S an advantage if the boundaries of the counties were altered, so as to bring Greenfield into the Tuapeka County. Witness also said he had read Mr Donald Reid's evidence, and admired it very much. He thought that if the Government wanted to do jtistice to those going on the land ifc would commission Mr Reid to frame a Land Bill on the lines of his evidence. Such a, bill would give satisfaction to the country, and be of benefit to those who went on the land. He had noticed that after the evidence given in Southland the Premier had made two suggestions on the lines of the testimony given before the commission. He had suggested that certain powers should be taken from the Tangers — a pandering to the leaseholders, — and he had proposed that advances to tenants on their improvements should be increased. He did not think that any valuable land in the district had been destroyed through mining, bu^ in a case like Island Block, seeing what had been done there, there ought to have been some restriction. There was no conflict between the miners and the farmers. If he had the management of Pomahaka to-day he would lease the sections on the deferred-payment system. He did not favour the suggestion thai, meetings of th© Land Board should be held in different parts of the district. Although he suppoi-ted the freehold he would limit, any man's holding by value, in private freehold as well as in Crown freeholds. He thought the labour law 3 had unsettled many young people in the country and drawn them to the towns in the hope that they would get benefit from this clasa of legislation.

James Robertson, farmer, said he held 970 acres of freehold which he used as a mixed farm. He favoured the freehold system. He was also in favour of tho deferredpayment system, which had worked woll irM the district in settling people on the land". Ho thought tho constitution of the Land Boai-d was satisfactory. The members should be as representative as possible. H& believed in the single ballot. It might ba necessary to have some grouping. TheTo was no good land being destroyed by mining in the district, except at Island Block. It would be wise to have restrictions against the destruction of good land. Joha EJie, county engineer and farmer, said he owned 600 acres at Crookston. Het regarded the constitution of Land Boai'da as very good. In the matter of tenure, ha thought that people ought to be allowed to take up Crown land as they wished, anc! that pastoral land should be dealt with under lease in perpetuity. It would have been a good thing for the colony if not! one acre of land had been sold. Estates resumed for close settlement ought to ba kept for settlement. He did not think that! the conditions imposed on Crown tenants were in any way irksome. He did not think there was any land in the district so inferior; that it might be brought under the homestead system. Ths land was all worth paying for, cither in rent or in cash. Ha supported the single ballot. A man should! not be forced to take a section he did notj wish to take. Work on estates in the was} of roads coiild be carried out cheaper bw the County Council than by the Governmena under th:. co-operative system. He did noli think settlers cughfc to be loaded fov roads;.*' The- .charge ought to be a colonial one-.; The principle of loading lands was bad. It vvou'd l>o better for the Government to pay for the roading thon to have thai settlers struggling on. H,i thought Ihoj

• Government alcne ought to advance on its own property. There was a tendency "in his district towards the aggregation of farms. He - meant that a man might increase his holding" from 200 acres to 1000 acres, but there was no aggregation of large estates. He thought the law should interTene to restrict the area to be held by any cne person. He had not heard of rangers harassing Crown tenants. He had heard that 'the overseers on 00-operative works had instructions to keep the earning power of the Tnen down to 7s" or 8s per day. If the no-operative system was improved il would work very well. - A farmer complained to jhim recently Hhat Bis land had been valued too high, and witness offered him 20 per "Tsent. on his own -valuation, but he refused to take it. ■ John Bulfin, farmer, said he worked 1000 Stores -of "freehold and leasehold land. He "favoured elective land boards, so that the people of various districts might have representatives on the board. He thought the deferred-payment system ,was • "a good system, and should be reintroduced. The lease in perpetuity should have a purchasing clause attached to it «s scon as certain conditions were carried oufc rße supported ' the freehold. A man always-tdok a deep interest in 'his land when it was his own. Tlobert Oowie, farmer and pastoralist, said he had 550 acres of freehold, 1340 acres under pastoral lease, and 1600 acres' under Fir-all-grazing license. He was a member of the Farmers' Uniou. He complained that for many years 'he could -not get , a definite boundary -to a portion . of his -land.' It "was . In cases of this -sort that Land -Board should have discr^ui-onary power. He advoicated ±hat - pastoral tenants should get,' full Valuation for reaeonabie improvements at ■ the end of the lease.. Commonages and reserves should l>e under the control of the ! Jjand Board or other board- for their proper management. When ttey were under no control, or under the control of people who Jiad'np interest in them, the rabbits' spread rapidly, and considerably depreciated the value of the adjoining land. wej»<?3 •were not kept down. Some .persons cl-s&red the weeds away, while others never troubled about them. He liad never hearS that the j rangers had unduly interfered with tenants. , They -were competent men, co far as he had seen, and had carried out their duties well. Edward O'Neill, Crown lands ranger, said , *hat the Crown tenants under various tenures wece fulfilling their conditions very well. Within a. radias of 20 miles -of La-w-rence he had had occasion to sneak to only one tenant about non-observance of the conditions of his lioense. Leaseholders farmed *iheir land just as -well as did the freeholders. , j&s a matter of fact, there were good men on both sides. The improvements, too, -were as* good on the leasehold as on the Sreehoid. He had been in North Otago, where he .had found that the leaseholds compared very favourably with the freeholds. The improvements on the land for settlements sections in North Otago were » superior to any he had seen anywhere else, «onßidering the- time the tenants had been , folding their leases. Taking the leaseholders jail in all, they compared very favourably indeed with their neighbours. He did not ihink that any of the regulations were .' or -harassing, and if he were a /Crown tenant he -would not consider himself •« slave. j '•-Mr Forbes: Is the Poniahaka Estate "under -your charge? — Y-es. j Have ya-u reported to the Land Board about Pomahaka'? — Yes. j Do you agree with the tenants that the , ■'rent "is" too high there"? — I do not care to ' mnswer the question. _No more evidence* was forthcoming. The commission left Lawrence in the afternoon for Dunedin. I