AVONHEAD SETTLEMENT.

Sun (Christchurch), Volume VI, Issue 1735, 5 September 1919, Page 9

AVONHEAD SETTLEMENT.

ALLOCATION OF SECTIONS. DISABLED MEN~ON HOLDINGS. The Avonhead Settlement, which represents a new and novel departure from the general scheme of land settlement for returned men, and concerning which there has been an unusually large amount of preliminary negotiation and discussion, really came into being yesterday, when its soldier occupants were selected by ballot. Although the idea underlying the creation of this settlement, which comprises 225 acres subdivided into 18 holdings ranging from five to 18 acres each, is entirely experimental, it yet promises no undue risks for the settlers. The men will establish orchards, bee and poultry farms, etc., under the guidance of experts from an adjoining demonstration area, which will also-train other men in rural pursuits. As was to be expected, there was keen competition for the holdings, which in r.iany instances were peculiarly suitable for" men capable of undertaking only light forms of outside work. There were 35 applications which the Canterbury Land Board, consisting of Messrs H. D. M. Haszard (Canterbury Commissioner of Crown Lands) and Messrs T. G. Gee, D. Stowell, E. Maeaulay, and W. Cunningham, was called to adjudicate upon as to their individual fitness to go to the ballot. This examination also had the novel feature that the board, had the assistance of members of the Canterbury District Eepatriation Board in an Udvisory capacity. This was due to recognition of the fact that the Eepatriation Board had interested itself in the creation of this special settlement. The Eepatriation Board was represented by Messrs A. W. Jamieson (chairman of the board), E. J. Howard, D. Jones, and T. M. Charters (District Eepatriation Officer). At the outset a discussion arose on the question of "preference," which before had not been exercised in respect to any Canterbury subdivisions for soldiers. In welcoming members of the Eepatriation Board, Mr Haszard said that no doubt the Land Board wGuld derive considerable assistance from them in putting the right men on the right sections. The Land Board had decided to reserve Sections 6 to 13 for disabled men, and members of the Repatriation Board had suggested that, other things being equal, preference should be given to married applicants. The board might consider this proposal. Mr- A. W. Jamieson, on the Commissioner's invitation, detailed the Expatriation Board's ideas regarding the selection of applicants and the stops which had been taken in establishing the settlement.

Mr Gee stated that, after the disabled men had' been given preference, he did not think that they should give preference to married men. Many young fellows wanted to get a section and then marry. Personally, he had not altogether favoured giving preference to disabled men, a? he held the opinion that it was the duty of the country to look after them. Mr D. Jones said that the Kepatriation Board view was that, where the qualifications were equal, a married man should have preference over a single man. It was eventually decided to give a certain amount of preference to the men who were married, but to take each case practically on its merits. The morning and the early part of the afternoon were spent in examining applicants. As a consequence of this examination, 20 men were picked to go to the ballot for 17 sections. In addition, one man, E. Orchard, was definitely allotted a section—No. 3 without the necessity of going to the ballot. The board did this under special powers conferred by clause 3 of its regulations, in view of the fact that the man was an experienced orchardist who was prepared to give advice and supervise the fruit-growing of other settlers. Although there were 35 applications as previously stated, several men did not put in an appearance, so that they were excluded from the ballot. One case was declined, as the applicant had insufficient experience, a few were declined as they were single men who were physically capable of working on larger places, and an applicant was turned down because it was considered that he was physically incapable of performing ihe work necessary, whilst his wife was in delicate health. His case will be favourably considered if an opportunity arises later for him to acquire a smaller holding. In many cases the board and members of the Repatriation Board conferred at great i length before a decision was arrived at, and rejected applicants should have little cause for complaint. However, where the system of giving preference to disabled men seemed at-fault was that there was no medical report or evidence before the board, members of which were compelled to rely on applicants' statements or their own judgment.

The Scene at the Ballot. "When tie ballot was conducted the wide corridors outside the board room were filled with about 350 returned men, the majority of whom, however, were in attendance in respect to other subdivisions. Those immediately interested fi'ed inside, whilst the doorway was blocked with the others. The "Avonheads," however, differed rather from the rest in that most of them bore obvious traces of their disability. There were limbless men, a man whose face was disfigured by a shell, and another who could not lift his» right arm. In one instance an applicant held a mate's certificate in the mercantile marine, was married and had a family. He had returned deaf, and therefore ineligible to, continue in his profession. Another, a man .with an artificial leg, also suffered from a bad head wound. He is a "lifer" as far as his pension is concerned. Some of these men, it may be mentioned, had been months without. regular employment, and perhaps the majority were married. It was little wonder that as the marbles rattled loudly in the spinning ballot box one could almost sense the anxiety at times without looking at the tense faces which told of the issues at stake. Yet as the winning number for a section was announced, often a generous mujmur of congratulation from the unlucky ones would be heard as the successful applicant would, maybe, limp forward. Once the name "Dunn" was called. "Dunn's 'done' it!" exclaimed a wag. A cheer went up. '' Pass the worfl along for Dunn" was heard in repetition down the coridor. But the applicant did not appear, and, by the rules, forfeited the draw. "Dunn's done it in!" remarked the before-mentioned wag, and there was a laugh as the second choice, a man with eight children, went gladly forward to sign up. As in respect to sections 12 and 13 the applicants were successful in drawing other holdings, it was announced that applications for these would be received up to noon to-day from disabled men who had been unlucky in respect to the draw for other lots. The successful applicants for the other sections are as follow, the capital value being stated in parentheses: — No. I—Ernest James Mills, 20 acres 0 roods 32 perches (£1410). No. 2—Frank Nevil Tomlinson, 18 acres 0 roods 5 perches (£1250).

No. 3—Ernest Orchard, 17 acres 3 roods 3 perches (£1240). No. 4—Eric Carlisle Sarglnson, 15 acres 3 roods 21 perches (£1100). No. s—Thomas Robert O'Callaghan, 15 acres 0 roods 38 perches (£1060). ' No. C—Harold Ernest Denton, 14 acres 1 rood 34 perches (£1060). No. 7—Edgar Leslie Rice, 12 acres 0 roods 30 perches (£870). No. B—Robert George Gawlor, 11 acres 1 rood 34 perches (£810). No. 9—Colin Swanston Crawford, 10 acres 3 roods 3 perches (£700). No. 10—Albert Henry Adams, 5 acres 0 roods 24 perches (£420). No. 11—James Fennerty, 5 acres 3 roods 12 perches (£410). No. 14—Harry Waddington Gooding, 13 acres 1 rood 26 perches (£1020). No. 15—John Henry Hannah, 11 acres 0 roods 6 perches (£830). No. 16—Arthur Stewart Campbell, 15 acres 2 roods 29 perches (£1185). No. 17—Charles Lewis Nelson, 14 acres .3 roods 15 perches (£1095). No. 18—Francis Sadler, 10 acres 2 roods 12 perches (£760).