OPPOSITION FROM PAHIATUA. PAHIATUA, October 9.

Otago Witness, Issue 2744, 17 October 1906, Page 16

OPPOSITION FROM PAHIATUA. PAHIATUA, October 9.

At" "a"' meeting' of farmers," held here ['this aTternoonT at" whicn" "repres<?nta.tfves- of rtheVarloifs branches' of the Far'nsfers' Union l were present, the following reeoratioo was unanimously carried : — " That, in the opinion of this meeting, being thoroughly representative of the farmers of the district, the Land Bill now before the House is not conducive to good, sound, colonial settlement, and the meeting urges Mr Rosa (the- member for the district) to oppose the bill being placed on the Statute Book until the country has had full time to consider it."

OPPOSITION OF THE NEW ZEALAND

FARMERS' UNION

The following is a copy of a letter 6ent to every member of the House of Representatives by direction of the Advisory Board of the New Zealand Farmers' Union: —

The Farmers' Union has directed me to write to you and respectfully urge that the Land Bill be not passed this session. There are many reasons in support of this request, but to mention a few :— 1 The optional system of disposal of the land remaining to the colony was the system which the late Mr Seddon placed before the country as the policy of the Government at last election. After the election he suggested it would be a good thing to endow the old-age pensions, hospitals, etc., with half a million acres of Crown lands. But the Land Bill withdraws the whole of the Crown lands for this purpose. Much of the land is bush land, in which case the improvements largely exceed the original cost, and the predominant partner in the transaction is not likely te do either himself or the land justice under the circumstances. The suggestion that 10 per cent, of the original cost of the land should remain in the hands of the State, and therefore that a man cannot deal with his property as he wishes except by the sanction of the Land Board, would not be received by the L.I. P. tenants as a fair solution of their case. If the State is prepared to go thus far, the manifest advantages to the State of getting nd of 'ln<* tenure should, we urge, cause members of the House to go the whole length and grant the freehold right out.

2. The optional tenure is to be retained in the case of purchased Native land only. If Native land is purchased, thon only those districts in which it is situated would have the optional system in p: act ice. whereas the Crown land in other districts (where there was no Native land to purchase) would only be offeied on the 66 years' lease system. . 3. The limitation of area (or. if tho limit is changed to £15.000 unimproved value, it would be the same) will have a most serious effect upon the whole community. The proposal has already interfered with transactions in land, and loans which would otherwise have gone through have been refused. Such a limitation will alter advances by way of mortgage on broad acres from a gilt-edged security to a much lower class, with the inevitable result that the rate must rise. Banks making advances to ANYONE holding land must rearrange and contract their loans. Other lending institutions must do the same, and the consequence must obviously be that, besides land-owners, those dealing with them would feel the strain, and business would bo seriously affected. The farmers who, though not "affected by the limit, are struggling under heavy engagements would be the first to suffer, and not tho wealthy man. It may be well to remind hon. members that tho number of owners of freeholds outside boroughs and town districts aro stated in the Year Book to be 2620. holding 1000 acros and upwards, so that Now Zealand cannot bo said to bo hold in largo holdings, though for the timo being some restricts have a greater number of large estat-cs than others.

f We have ventured to take the unusual 1 cour&e (as far as we are concerned) <of j addressing each member separately, but it is only because of the magnitude of the interests t involved, and- the seriousness of the con- ' sequences if the bill were to become law, j that we have done so. ! And also it is only after most careful consideration over the length and breadth of New Zealand by the farmers (who are vitally interested), " and therefore we respectfully submit we have a right to be j heard, and after much discussion have I asked you to give these remarks considera- . tion. During the passage of the bill through i the House (many of the provisions of which are new to the country), there may not be the time or opportunity to give the consideration to it that there is during a recess, when members would have an opportunity of conferring (without any party feeling which might be aroused by a heated discussion) with those whose interests would • Joe -*ffected $ ?» . I And w«»lb.erefore crave that a sufficient pause? be m€de that the gravity of the situation^ demands.— l have, etc., , James G. Wilson, - - ' • President, f-Earmers' Union.