EVIDENCE AT WINDSOR.

Otago Witness, Issue 2665, 12 April 1905, Page 15

EVIDENCE AT WINDSOR.

LEASEHOLD SYSTEM SUPPORTED.

OAMARU, March 30

The Land Commission left the White City this morning shortly after 8 o'clock, and drove in a couple of cfrags to Windsor, passing- en route the fine residences of Mr John Eeid (of Elder&lieJ and Mr Menlove

(of Windsor Park), and viewing some.excellent farming land in possession of small settlers. Some of the land is freehold, and some is held on lease from the Government. Undoubtedly this is one of the best farming districts the commission has visited, and, as far as one can see, the tenants are very comfortable and the improvements substantial. The crons of wheat, oats, and turnips are truly remarkable.

A mee-ting was held in the Public Hall at 11 o'clock, when there was a good attendance of e&ttlers. The feature of the evidence was the unanimity of the witnesses in favour of the leasehold tenure.

James Don, farmer, Windsor, said he held a lease in perpetuity of 734 acres of Government land, which ho used for mixed farming. He had worked the land successfully, and was eatisfied with his tenure. The only weak point was in regard to the concessions. It was right to allow a man a concession for extraordinary loss through hailstorms or other causes, but if he had a good year in the following year he ought to make up the difference either in that year or extended over a period. The State should still have a claim on the rent for the poor year. He considered it was a good thing for the district that the Government had broken up the estates. He had been in the district for 30 years and had never seen it so flourishing as it was at present. Land had been rising in value before the Government bought the- estates in the district. The railways had cause*.! the pi'ice to advance. The years 1890-4 were not prosperous because they were dry years. Croppers had some of the land m those years, paying £2 per acre for cropping and £3 per acre for potato ground. A man could grow as gooeS a crop for 6s 6d per acre now as he could grow at that time for £2 10s. Some of the large estates had been out up. privately, and he did not think they would have been subdivided if the Land for Settlements Act had not been passed. The cutting-up of the estates had improved Oamaru. In the last five years the town had gone, ahead more than it had in the previous 15 years. The Corriedale Estate was suitable for cutting up into areas of from 500 to 700 acres. Otekaike could also be cut up into holdings of a fair size — say 200 or 300 acres. He was satisfied with^ the present constitution of the Land Board. He did not see that it was necessary for th-e board to have more discretionary power. He considered that the cutting-up of the estates had trebled the population of the district. Leaseholders with whom he was acquainted intended to make homes on their land. They treated their land just as well as the freeholders did. He thought th© cropping regulations were too strict. In the old days, whe-n they paid £2 an acre for cropping-, wheat was up to 5s and even 7s per bushel. The runholder afterwards sowed the land in grass. If there was a bad season there was no doubt the land would fall considerably in value. If a. man had some good years and had cash to spar© he should still keep to the leasehold. Some settlers had sold out at a premium, which was more than sufficient to recoup them for their improvements. The Windsor settlers had not come there that day to demand the freehold. As far as he was concerned, he did not want it. He would stick to his lease at it was at present. Leases issued in future should be on the same footing as o"d leases. There should j be no provisions for revaluation in leases, | past or in the future. ,

James Neill M'Cowan, farmer, Elderslie, said he held 320 acres on lease in perpetuity at a rental of 7s pea- acre. He had been, on his section 18 months, and was satisfied with both his tenure and his rent. He considered that the cropping clause was wrong. On Waikakahi there was land classed as first class at from 4s to 19s. and jio landholder could expect to get the same cropping conditions on the 4s land as on the 19s land. How was the 19s man to get his rental out of the land with two crops? It was said that the land would stand four crops. Land over 12s 6d ought to be entitled to three white crops in succession. On Waikakahi he held 34 acres at 9d and 50 acres ot 3s 4d. and because he held that he was not allowed to go to a ballot. Such treatment was an injustice tq. a small settler. It was a hardship on settlers who had established a home on their sections not to be allowed to go to the ballot to increase their holding. He was satisfied with the lease hi perpetuity, and did not wish to have the right of purchase. He did not think the lease in perpetuity was good for the State ; but it was good for the tenant. He thought that the examination of candidates for land was to some extent a farce. It had been in the interests of the district to cut up estates. Farmers desired surety of tenure ; a revaluation was not wanted. It had caused the breakdown of the small grazing runs. There was Californian thistle in the district, bui it was not increasing. He did not know what ragwort was. It would not be wise to give th e freehold on any terms. The examination of applicants for land was a farce because any fellow with brains could beat the commissioners every time. Of course a man had to show his bank book, but if he had no money a friend would lend him a few hundreds. He had been a Government leaseholder in Canterbury and Otago. and had always found the rangers fair and reasonable men. He believed there was a branch of the Farmers' Union alive in the district. They were on the bag question just now, and cared nothing about the freehold at present.

Jno. M. M'Ra? said he farmed 426 acres on Elderilie, paying 7s 9d per acre for his land. He was satisfied with the lease in perpetuity system. He had been under various land tenures in the colony in his time, and regarded the lease in perpetuity as the best. He had no yearning for the freehold, but if the public policy put the freehold in his way he would accept it, paying off the -nurehafce , money gradually. If there was to be any mortgagee it should be the Government. Any improvements put on the ground during the tenant's term should be allowed as valuation to him. He was satisfied with the constitution of the Land Board.

Joseph Bates said he farmed 496 acres of Elderslie settlement, his rent being: 8s 3d per acre. He was quite satisfied with his lease in perpetuity, with his rent, and with the Land Board ; the tenants in the* district generally were satisfied. On the whole they farmed their land fairly well. He did not think there had been any failures. The leaseholders were farmingtheir land <ns well a» Ihe freeholders, and their buildings we-re as good as the freeholdots' buildings?. The pohoy of the breaking up of 'arge estates had been a good one for the district.

John Brown Sieel, settler, on the first Windsor Park settlement, said he farmed 230 -acres, for which he paid 12s 6d per sere. iThe first settlers on Windsor Park had not got* justice with regard to the rebate. It had been given on the estates round abyut, but not to them. Witness produced a letter from the Otago Land Board in which it was stated that no rebate was allowed in respect to the Windsor Park sections. He also complained of the cropping restrictions. He would like lo be -allowed to crop and clean his section to his own satisfaction. If a itAn put substantial improvements on his land all cropping restrictions might be abolished. The State would be protected. Mr Barron, Chief Commissioner Ota,go District, said the josition with Tegard to the rebate was that as the estate was bought at a reasonable price, at a price less than the market value, it was not deemed necessary to sllow a rebate for prompt payment. It was a, question, however, that was being reconsidered in connection with Windsor Park No. 1 estate »nd -other estates. Tn reply to questions, Witness said that che "matter of allowing a re.bate was in the discretion of the commissioners and the Receiver of Land Revenue. If a tenant was paying full value for his land he was allowed 10 per cent, rebate of rate, if hewas paying fair price he was allowed 5 par cent., and if he was paying less than the value he was not allowed any rebate at all.

The Chairman said the law respecting the reba^ was a very stupid one, and put the officers of the department in a most up-e-nviable position- The Legislature had not the courage or the wisdom to say " We •will Kive a rebate for prompt payment, and for that alone." They Lad put the jr-atter in a fiddliner way that exposed officers to continual discontent on the part of Crown tenanls>-TjApt>lause from Crown tenants in the body of the hall.)

Samuel James Davis, ?-sttler, Windsor Park No. 1 estate, also Aads a complaint about not gettiner a rebate for prompt payment of rent. He said the cropping tssulations wers nnsuited to the district. He vras satisfied with his lease in perpetuity. He had 69 acres, for which he paid Us per acr«

Geo. Livingstone, a member of the Land Board, said the settlers on Windsor Park 3fo. 1 -estate were entitled to a rebate, and from a conversation he had recently with 4he Minister of Tends in Oamaru he was satisfied they ought to get it. The rebate should be made a matter of law and ihe purpose- definitely stated. whether for prompt -payment or as a method of relief. Mr Barron raid that Mr Living-stone's statement thre^v upon Mm the onus of refusing rebate to the tenants, and it was not 'fair he should be placed in that position. .He considered that Mr Livingstone, as a ■pcenYhnr of the TLand Board, ought to have ".kept clear of the case, and not made such a statement-

Mr Johnston said it wag wrong that anir member of a Land Board should come and express his views on the question of this kind without consult'ng Mr Barron.

The Chairman said it would have been as well if Mr Livingstone had not made his statement pubiiclv.

Mr Livingstone said he would like to explain that he- had brought the matter before the commission on behalf of the settlers, and had -expected that at the last meeting of the board it would have been allowed to them As a member of the Land Board f o- tl c district, « he thought it was only right he %hould make that statement. He had no intention of putting Mr Barron in a false position. He would also say now that the matter had gone so far that the Hon. Mr Duncan even told him to * inform Mr Barron that it was his wish that these tenants should get 'the rebate. He had so inforiied Mr Barron.

Thomas O'Connor, farmer, Windsor Park, came forward with a grievance in regard to his deferred payments. When the position was explained to him he appeared to be satisfied, and departed. The commission left Windsor at 2 o'clock.