WEST COAST LEASES.

Taranaki Herald, Volume LX, Issue 143788, 11 May 1912, Page 7

WEST COAST LEASES.

COMMISSION OF INQUIRY.

The commission, consisting of Dr. M’Arthur (S.M., Wellington, chairman), and Mr. W. Kerr (S.M., Wanganui), appointed to inquire into matters connected with the leases under “The West Coast Reserves Act, 1881,” opened its sittings at the Court-house, Hawera on Friday. As stated in the Government Gazette of April 11, the Commission is to inquire:

(1) On what terms and conditions the said lessees or any of them should be permitted to surrender their present leases and obtain new leases in lieu thereof under section 8 of the West Coast Settlement Reserve Act,

1892. (2) Whether any of the said lessees have been misled by any act of the Public Trustee or any other officer of the Public Trust Department, or the form of the lease issued, or the regulations made under the West Coast Settlement Reserves Act, 1881, or its amendments, into believing that there was no limit to the amount of compensation to which they were entitled under their leases, and in consequence or such belief made on their lease—holds or purchased from other lessees improvements in excess of five pounds (£5)

per acre. (8) What areas of land now leased under the West Coast Settlement Reserves Act, 1881, and its amendments, may hereafter be required by the Native owners for their use and occupation; and, having regard to their particular interests therein and their individual fitness for profitably using such lands, which of the said leases, if any, should be allowed to remain under the jnwsent tenure in order that such Native owners may, on the expiration of such leases, compete for the possession, of the lanUs held under them. (4) What provisions should be made

to enable such Native owners to get financial assistance from the Governweut to enable them to work their farms, should any of them become tenants of such leaseholds.

Mr. R. D. "Welsh (of Hawera), appeared on behalf of about fifty of the lessees, and Mr. W. H. D. Bell, of Wellington appeared for the whole of the Natives. Dr, Pomare, M.P., and Mr. T. W. Fisher, under-secretary for Native affairs, were also present. Counsel for both parties agreed to the suggestion of Dr. M’Arthur as to the question of procedure that tho lessees should state their case first.

Mr. Welsh, in opening, said that in approaching tho inquiry referred to the commission, he proposed inviting the commissioners, first shortly to consider the facts loading up to and out of which the claims of tho lessees holding leases under the West Coast Settlement Reserves Act, 1881, and its anieudmens, arose. At the outset, he desired to consider the conditions at the time the lands were leased in 1881, and onwards. The lands then were mainly in their virgin state; they wre put up to lease at the best improved rent obainable at the time; some of tho lands did not let readily, and these, rightly so, were kept buck by the Public Trustee until such time as he could get better rents. The mode of disposal of the leases was set forth in paragraph 1 of the regulations, under which jt would be seen than tho lessee was no favoured person. Flo was to pay full rent for Native lands in a virgin condition, in a district which had but recently emerged from a state of war surrounded by a largo population of Natives (largo in proportion to the number of white settlers on tho land) whom it would" be mere cuphenism to describe as peaceful. Nor were the settlers to be allowed to acquire the lease for mere speculative purposes, for, according to regulation 28, a farm of 100 acres, for instance by tho sixth year, would have to nave 20 acres under cultivation, plus £IOO in substantial improvements. The losses was led to believe that lie was to be paid in full for “all” substantial improvements. There was no limitation of value, for under covenant 5 he was to be paid by tho incoming .tenant for all fcuildinfgs and fixtures, including fencing, which were substantial. Further, he was led to anticipate, under the Act of 1892, that ho was to be paid in full for all improvements of a permanent nature. He went on to detail the lessees’ rights under the lease, which he claimed were not quite so certain as they might appear at first sight. There was no attempt in the lease to really set out and. define in plain language what the lessees’ rights were, and he said here at once that the lessees were misled by their leases, by tho form of covenant, and by tho effect of the regulations. Passing on, he considered the actions of the lessees after they had got their leases. They devoted all their time and money and energy into getting their bush felled, and their grass sown, and tho land fenced. Fie lived hard in a whare, and he asked, would he have done this if he had known that ho was not to bo entitled to any compensation for it; would he have taken up his lands at all. In the year, 1910, a measure, thought at the time to be a measure of relief, but which he had on behalf of the lessees, steadily protested again, was in the late hours of the session, passed, and it became law. By section 4 of the Native Lands Claims Judgment Act, 1910, it was enacted that in the case of these leases the improvements to be valued should be all permanent improvements under the Act of 1908 up to the value of £5 per acre. Obviously tho bush felling and grassing and kindred work done by the lessees was now to be included in his improvements. Ho only mentioned this now to show that the fact had not been overlooked in the consideration of the lessees’ cases, but that was not the point under consideration at tho moment. What he wished to direct attention to was, had the lessees' been misled by the leases and the regulations? He contended that the actions of the lessees spoke for themselves. They expended them all in bringing the land into cultivation. He then went on to deal with the question of compensation, and in support of his contention that the lessees were under the impression that they were to be paid for all their improvements, said that the Public Trustee and the public lending departments had assisted lessees in excess of tho £5. It was obvious that the lease was badly drawn up, and it did tend not only to mislead the toiler but tho man whose duty it was to consider and deal with documents. Ho then referred to tho Act of 1892, by which there was a right given to the lessees under the 1881 Act to convert their leases from leases under the 1881 Act to leases under the 1892 Act. It might be urged that the lessees had had this right extended. The right was given in 1892 to 1893, then from 1895 to 1896, and again from 1898 to 1900. Some of the lessees knew in 1892 that they had the right of conversion, but they never heard

of any extension, or rather, of any revival of the right, and in 1892 thoy were not in a financial position to pay anything, not even for costs. After 1893, when the first right was gone, some of the lessees spent considerable sums in improvements, now being in a hotter position. Some knew later than 1893 of the rights of conversion, hut did not know the legal effect of the leases of 1881. None knew that they were limited in regard to payment for their improvements. The position of the lessees was only disclosed when judgment was given in Tinkler’s cases, and they then petitioned the House for relief, claiming payment for improvements without limitation; and the right to still come under the Act of 1892, This petition was referred to the Lands Committee of the House. The committee heard some' of the petitioners, and the Public Trustee suggested that the Public Trustee and the petitioners should attempt to come to some arrangement. This they did, and the Lands Committee reported to the House recommending legislation in the terms of that memorandum. He believed that a fair measure of legislation, and the lessees now only asknd to bo placed in the same position they would have been in had they been aware of their rights of conversion; they only asked to he allowed to come in under the 1892 Act and pay the Natives full compensation, they asked to have, the right of conversion extended for the fourth time, not having understood their position in the past. Counsel’s address occupied the afternoon, and at its conclusion the commission adjourned until this morning, when evidence is being taken in support of Air. Welsh’s argument. The comission will subsequently sit at Opunake and New Plymouth.