EVIDENCE AT GERALDINE AND TEMUKA.

Otago Witness, Issue 2666, 19 April 1905, Page 17

EVIDENCE AT GERALDINE AND TEMUKA.

ASHBURTON, April 11. The liand Commission left Timaru at 7.20 a.m., and arrived at Geraldine shortly after 9. John Kelland. farmer, with 1300 acres freehold and 1100 acres leasehold (PrimarySchool reserve), said he got no valuation for improvements, and the lease was too short. He thought the leasehold system was a good one to enable people to settle on the land, but there was a, fear of revaluation. If he were a lease-in-perpetuity holder he would fear that some day his rent would be increased. Witness preferred a freehold tenure. It would probably be better if educational endowments were controlled by Land Boards. He" thought the revaluation idea generally eanie from unpractical men in towns. One Government settlement in the district hail been satisfactory till the rating •value of the settlement was put up. The Government valuation. was adopted, and the settlers were all. complaining very much about it. For some years the Government tenants were not contributing their full quota to the rates, as they had been more leniently treated by the Government in the matter of valuation than the freehold settlers. He thought the matter had been

somewhat altered recently, but he was not very sure on the point. He had only come . to give evidence at the request of Mr Anst-ey, as it was feared there would be no witnesses at all at Geraldine. George James Wreathall, a freeholder, detailed his experience as a settler on the

land. He was satisfied that on rough Crown land nothing but the freehold would pay the settler. He complained bitterly of the Government valuation, and said the valuer Jiad allowed only £144 for improvements that cost iJJrOO. He complained of the want of discretion by the Road Board m the ■expenditure of "thirds." He advocated the leasing of Crown lands with the right to purchase, and thought they should be disposed of in areas of not more than 500 acres of first-class land and 1000 acres of second-class land. Twenty-five per cent, of *he rent should be available for the construction of roads .under the land for settlements scheme. . H& advocated the perpetual lease system, with revaluation and the right to purchase. The land should be held as follows: — First-class land (worth over £15 an acre), 200 acres: second-class land (under £15 and over £7 10s), 400 acres ; third-class land (under £7 10s), 600 awes. The disposal of pastoral lands should be according *o the number of sheep they would carry. There should be stringent cropping regulations in connection with agricultural leases. He also advocated that no man in New Zealand should be allowed to hold more than 640 acres of first-class land and 2000 acres of second-class land. The one great ■blot on Sir John M'Kenzie's act was that it did noi provide for revaluation. When Le first stocked his land he paid only 6id

for ewes. If New Zealand was settled with freeholders the colony would have a better and more solid class of settlers. The Land Boards should have large discretionary powers. He was satisfied that in the future the lease in perpetuity would be .insecure-. If the towns contained the majority, they would take good care that the land that had been fooled away at a peppercorn rent would be revalued. Robert Anderson, farmer, with a lease in perpetuity of rough, stony country, complained of the restrictions in connection with the lease in perpetuity. The Government Handbook said it was as good as the freehold, but it was not ; in fact, he had no hesitation in saying that it was a perfect fraud. He found he could not sell to the highest bidder nor to a man with capital. The board had to approve of the tenant, and he had to sell to a landless man, and therefore he found the tenure not nearly so good as the freehold, for which he cried aloud. Job Quantock, farmer, with a freehold and leasehold property, spoke of the necessity of compensation for land washed away by floods. He thought it rather hard that he should have to pay rent for land that was washed away. George Murray, 'holding 68,000 acres under pastoral tenure and 1800 acres freehold near Mount Cook, spoke of tho necessity of granting renewals of leases, longer tenures, ancl valuations- for improvements. If the runholders had tetter treatment in these respects they would the land with plantations and by surface sowing. In Australia the runholders were allowed voluation for improving their runs by the erection of dams, etc. Peter Friel, a lease in perpetuity soitinr, said he approved of that tenure, but if the freehold oamo ho would take it at the original value. There was a great feeling amongst the Crown tenants in favour of the freehold. This had been brought about by an agitation got up by the Trades Councils, deputations from which had gone to the Premier with resolutions demanding revaluation. He referred to a deputation two years ago. Otherwise the lease in perpetuity tenure was quite satisfactory, and if it was let alone it would be as good as the freehold. The cropping regulations were too stringentEdward Log England said he was porfoctly satisfied, and had* nothing sisecial to mention to the commission. Ho did not think the State- would be wise to let him use his savings to pay off some of his capital value, and so reduce his rent. Robert Thew, holder of a pastoral lease at, Orari Gorge, gave evidence similar to that given by tho witness Murray. He had obtained good results from surface sowing. After lunch the commission drove back to Temuka through the Waiarji Settlement. Temuka was reached at 4 o'clock, and a meeting was at once held to take evidence. John Talbot. chairman of the Geraldine County Council, said he thought the Crown tenants should be given the option of the freehold at the original value. Tho object of the State was to get the best out of the land. ,Re-aggregation would be kept in cheek by taxation. Tn that country there had been more breaking up than aggregation of estates. The freeholders in times _of trouble would bo the jnen the State would look to, but he was afraid that in times of trouble the leaseholders would look to theState. Californian thistle was increasing in til* 3 district, and would depreciate the value of the land. * Walter Acton, who farms an agricultural Irase, said lie thought it was absurd for either a man or the State to sign a leasp for 999 years. He favoured the option of the- freehold. Every colonist knew that if bad times set in the Crown tenants would have to get^i reduction in ront. Miohael O'Loughlin, a Crown tenant, complained that his holding was too small. He was only allowed to croo hal f his land, but he desired to crop^ all his land for thre© years and then put in down in grass for three years, so that durinsr the latter three years he could sell his horses. Daniel Angland, a Crown tenant at Albury, complained of the cropping regulations. He thought the Crown tenants should have the option of purchase. This would be aood both for <he State and for the individual. This witness had missed the Commission at Albury. and had travelled many miles in order to give evidence. He said a leaseholder might make money, and. not being a thrifty, man, he might put it in some foolish speculation and lose it. It would be better for him to put the money in his farm. Frank G-reen, a Crown tenant on Arowhenua, objected to the cropping restrictions. Ho had broken the regulations, and the board had warned him. At present too much capital was required of a man under the Land for Settlements Act. He was satisfied with his tenure, but his holding was too small. Ho required double the area, and thought he phould have- the right to buy another man out. He did not think tenants should be punished for breaking the rcgttlationa

M. Lawle-r, a Crown tenant with a 40-acre farm, said the cropping regulations should be altered. There was too much twitch in his land. The Crown tenants should bo allowed to work the land as they liked, and tenants should be allowed to pay off at least two-thirds of the capital value. Bad times would come, and the tenants would not bo able to pay their rent. He admitted having 'broken tiie cropping r-e p-ulations. James Davis, a Crown tenant with a farm of 20£ acres, complained of the local ratfeng. He was satisfied with his tenure, but thought he should be allowed to ballot •for a larger section. B. Horgan, farm labourer, holding 11 acres of land, complained that his section was too small. He wanted to transfer it i to his sister, who had 58 acres adjoining, ; but he could not do so. Until he could ' get rid of this section ho could not ballot tor a larger one. Michael Seaniaell, farmer and threshingmachine- proprietor, said he saw a great deal of the tenants, ancl knew that there was a desire amongst them to get the ' option of the freehold. They were alraid ot their present tenure. They also wanted discretionary power in regard jo cropping. He was quife positive uiat he had seen a proposal in tho papers that there should bo retrospective revaluation. Witness was- a Crown tenant, and also owned a fre-ehold. Some of the t-rown tenants were doing well, but others wore not. There were sonic who would never do well under any circumstances. The Crown tenants shou'd pay land tax as well as tne freeholders. Patrick Mitten, another Crown tenant, f-akl that after five years' occupation a mail should i)o allowed fo i*>p as he liked. Nearly every Crown tenant in the district j i.j whom he had spoken wanted tho opn'nn ' of paying off from 75 to 80 per c-'Ut. of vho capital value of his section. , The Commissioners arrived hero ai 9 p.m.. after a 15 hours' day from Geraldine to i Tcmuka. They drove along the uplands, ' and saw some beautiful agricultural country, ) v. ith which they were greatly delighted. \ , To-morrow the Commission drives to Mr I Grigg's famous farm at Longbeach, and takes evidence here in the afternoon. Mr W. W. M'Cardle writes that the j statement in the report of the meeting of j the Land Commission at Timaru to the ! effect that Mr Anstey complained that Mr I M'Cardle had twice interrupted him was ■ inaccurate.. It was of Mr M'Lennan that > the complaint was made.