SOLDIERS AND LAND SETTLEMENT

Otago Witness, Issue 3396, 16 April 1919, Page 8

SOLDIERS AND LAND SETTLEMENT

STATEMENT BY MR SADD.

BOARD DESIRES TO HELP

SOLDIERS

Some very direct statements were made at the sitting of the Otago Land Board last week by Mr Sadd (Commissioner of Crown Lands) respecting certain letters which have appeared in the press criticising various aspects of the board's policy. Mr Sadd dealt first with a letter which Mr J. E. MaoManus had addressed to the District Repatriation Board, and which had been published in the Otago Daily Tunes on March 25. In the course of this letter Mr MaoManus stated that the members of his union were of opinion that land for discharged soldiers had been acquired at fictitious valuations, based on war profits. Mr Sadd said he wished to deny that statement altogether. The board took the greatest precautions in the matter of purchasing land. First it got the Government valuation as some basis on which to value tho land. Then it got a report and valuation from one of its own rangers, who possessed expert knowledge of land and land valuations all over the district. To supplement these valuations they got a third valuation by an outside valuer, a man chosen for his knowledge of land and stock in that particular part of the district where tho property was situated. The whole of this information was then discussed and carefully considered by the Land Purchase Board and the Land Board, and the price offered was based on the three valuations. A further statement in Mr MacManus's letter expressed tho belief that the present constitution of the Land Board, which denied tho intending settler any representation at all, and which only provided representation to vested interests was intentionally responsible for the high prices paid for land for soldier settlements. Mr Sadd' said he ako wished to give the implication contained in this sentence an emphatic denial. The settlers were represented on tho board by a member elected by the Crown tenants, and where, ho asked, could any better representation bo obtained than by the Crown tenants, who numbered olose on 5000? At the present time there was an election pending, and tho vote would bo taken on April 24. With regard to vested interest there was not' a member of the board who had any vested interests in any land for disposal to tho Government or who himself bad any land for sale for the purpose of soldiers' settlements. Mr Munro: That is quite right. Mr Sadd added that three of their members were Government nominees, chosen by tho Government from different part of the district, and selected for the position as men of proved probity and having a Wide knowledge of land value and transactions in all descriptions of land.

Mr Sadd next dealt with a letter which had appeared in an. Oamaru paper on April 4. Tne writer stated, inter alia: "A leasehold farm in Ngapara, held by a lady who had for years broken the residential clause of her. lease—in fact, had married and left the district, thus forfeiting- her farm —was allowed to be transferred to a brother who had evaded military service on the ground that he was indispensable on his father's farm. Can tho commissioner .... tell us why this farm was not reserved for ballot by returned soldiers"? Mr Sadd explained that «this farm was obtained by ballot by Miss' M. A. Hewton long before any of the present members of the board were in office.' The present board had persistently set its face against the acquisition of Government leaseholds by single Women, as these scarcely turned out satisfactorily. In 1916 Miss Hewton got marrisd, and went to live in Timaru. At that time she lodged an for a transfer of her holding to her brother. This application was rejected by the board because members considered the transferee should offer himself for enlistment, and he was informed that if he were rejected for military service the transfer would probably be favourably considered. He did not offer himself for enlistment until some little time afterwards, and he was then given exemption by the Military Service Board on account of about 200 acres'of wheat which were growing on the leasehold farm in his sister's name. In September, 1918, the Land Board instructed its ranger to inspect this property, and see if the conditions were being complied with. Tho ranger reported that the residenco conditions were not being complied with, and at the next meeting tho board sent a notice to the lessee to show cause why the lease should not be forfeited for non-compli-ance with the residence conditions. On November 6 following the lessee put in an application to purchase, which he had a perfect right to do, as the lease carried that condition with it, and this application was formally approved by the board, which had no option in the matter. As a result the property had been sold to the lessee on the deferred payment system. This action eiiectually blocked any action the Land Board might have taken with regard to the forfeiture of the lease, because it had been shown at law that as long as the board accepted rent it condoned,, any breach of the conditions of a lease. The writer of the letter also accused the board of permitting land aggregation by allowing a wife to enter tho ballot when her husband already had as much land as he could farm. "That statement," said Mr Sadd, "is quite inaccurate, and provision is made-to meet the position in the answers to questions on our application forms. The legal position is that if a wife is landless the husband is also landless, and vice versa."

Mr Inder: We have' repeatedly refused applications from wives where their husbands have owned land The Commissioner proceedefl to express the opinion that before letters of the type of those to which he had referred were published they should be submitted to himself or to someone in authority so that the editor could append a footnote explaining the position. A great many people rushed into print with a fancied grievance, and in almost every instance a very different comElexion could bo placed upon tho matter y a brief explanation, "Mr Inder expressed his entire agreement with what the commissioner had said. The newspapers, bv doing what Mr Sadd had suggested, could very often help the public to arrive at a true statement of the position. With regard to the statements wliich the commissioner had placed before them, he felt sure that if Mr MaoManus and others went to the trouble to find out how carefully tie board went into all_ these matters they would change their opinion entirely. The board sou£ht at all times to help the soldiers as much as possible, and if men came before them with a good case they were always prepared to meet them and to assist them to the full extent of their powers.